DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed 10/18/2024 is being considered by the examiner
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step") are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step") are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word "means," but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "at least one knowledge model providing" in claims 1 and 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because claim 26 recites, "a data carrier signal." As such, the claim is drawn to a form of energy. Energy is not one of the four categories of invention and therefore, this claim is not statutory. Energy is not a series of steps or acts and thus is not a process. Energy is not a physical article or object and as such is not a machine or manufacture. Energy is not a combination of substances and therefore not a composition of matter.
The Examiner suggests amending the claim to read as a "non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing the computer program of claim 25".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-6, 8, 13, 16-18, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the list of possible observations" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the frequency of occurrence" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the most probably technical cause" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the frequencies of occurrence" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " the probabilities" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the frequencies of occurrence or probabilities" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the overall probability" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites, "the combination" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites, "the selected observation" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the combined probabilities or frequencies" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the most probable technical cause" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the frequency of occurrence" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the frequencies of occurrence" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the probabilities" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the overall probability" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites, "the combination" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites, "the selected observation" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the combined probabilities or frequencies" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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.
Claim 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 17, 19, 22, 23, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mazzocco et al. [US Pub. 2015/0324934] ("Mazzocco").
With regard to claim 1, Mazzocco teaches a device for finding possible technical causes of or solutions for malfunctions of a specific production cell ("a system 30 for handling stalls and/or the solution of problems in molding plastic materials, and in particular for processes comprising a work island or equipment 10 (FIG. 1) adapted for producing a molded piece [par. 0034]") which is one of a plurality of possible production cells (see [fig. 2] where there are multiple equipment (10)), wherein the specific production cell is built of a plurality of different objects and contains at least one cyclically operating shaping machine ("The work island 10 comprises for the aim a hot-runner injection press 11 fitted with a known injection and molding assembly 12 which, in turn, comprises the functional units for plasticizing, injection and clamping [par. 0045]"), the device comprising:
at least one electronic computing unit ("The server 32 (FIG. 3) is equipped with a processing unit 34 [par. 0048]");
at least one machine interface operatively coupled to the at least one electronic computing unit ("Unit 34 is interfaced with [0050] (optionally) a display 36 to display signals or warnings for a user and a keypad 52 for receiving input [par. 0049]" and "one or more work islands 10 in order to exchange data with their displays 14 or keypads 16 or set the operating parameters thereof [par. 0059]"); and
at least one knowledge model providing, for all production cells of the plurality of possible production cells ("a processing unit, remote and external to the presses, for carrying out a search in a database of technical causes to define a subset of causes related to the defect acquired [par. 0033]"), information that specifies for a plurality of possible malfunctions which objects that are present in one or more of the production cells of the plurality of production cells can cause a given malfunction ("a database of technical causes to define a subset of causes relating to the defect acquired [par. 0009]" and "examining the type and/or the state of the product, the plastic material, the mold, the hot-runner and the press on which the process is carried out [par. 0010]");
wherein the at least one electronic computing unit being configured to:
accept input by an operator of the specific production cell specifying an observation observed by the operator regarding a malfunction of the specific production cell ("I. acquiring an input about the defect (e.g. acquired by reading the data input by a user from a user-interface or detecting it directly from the sensors) [par. 0008]"),
based on the input, access the at least one knowledge model ("II. searching a database of technical causes to define a subset of causes relating to the defect acquired in step I [par. 0009]") and, for those objects which form part of the specific production cell, identify at least one object which can exhibit a malfunction which is consistent with the observation of the operator of the specific production cell ("III. reducing the number of causes by filtering out from the subset only the ones compatible with the current work programme of the press and/or the characteristics (e.g. structural) of the process (there is no limitation to the sole characteristics of the press, but also those for the whole process by examining the type and/or the state of the product, the plastic material, the mold, the hot-runner and the press on which the process is carried out) [par. 0010]" and "determine if the cause is due to incorrect settings [par. 0080]" and "injection profiles (derived from Moldflow simulations, for example) related to the mold/hot-runner being used on the press 11 under investigation [par. 0083]" and "the optimal temperatures of the plasticising cylinder and/or of areas of the hot-runner [par. 0084]"),
calculate, using an algorithm, at least one technical cause of or solution for the observation provided as input by the operator ("The database 40 of technical causes is accessed and data associated with or identifying a particular problem (found in the previous step in the database 38 or manually input) is searched for, and a filter automatically extracts the relevant data on possible causes from database 40 [par. 0073]"), and
provide the calculated at least one technical cause or solution to the operator via the at least one machine interface ("The display 14 then shows the list of possible causes which can also be ordered by the unit 34 according to a statistical occurrence [par. 0074]").
Note: claim is presented in the alternative.
With regard to claim 2, Mazzocco teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one electronic computing unit is configured to accept input to identify the specific production cell and/or a specific cyclically operating shaping machine ("a user interface to acquire an input about a defect which occurred in a press in the group [par. 0035]" and "the press 11 under investigation [par. 0083];" it is implied that the press under investigation is identified).
Note: claim is presented in the alternative.
With regard to claim 3, Mazzocco teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one electronic computing unit is configured to provide a list of possible observations to the operator via the at least one machine interface and to accept input selecting that observation of the list of possible observations which is a best match to the observation observed by the operator regarding a malfunction of the specific production cell ("in step I text input by an operator or his selection from a list or menu of likely causes or defects can be read [par. 0014]" and "a predefined list of problems with a selection option is automatically shown on the display 14 [par. 0069]").
With regard to claim 5, Mazzocco teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one electronic computing unit is configured to operatively connect to at least one statistics database which contains the frequencies of occurrence for each observation ("The number of statistical occurrences can be a data saved in the database 40 or calculated in real time by the unit 34 [par. 0074]") in order to calculate at least the most probable technical cause of or solution for the observation provided as input by the operator and to provide the calculated at least one technical cause or solution to the operator via the at least one machine interface ("The display 14 then shows the list of possible causes which can also be ordered by the unit 34 according to a statistical occurrence [par. 0074]") and
wherein it is preferably provided that the at least one electronic computing unit is further configured to calculate a defined number of probable technical causes or solutions and to provide the calculated probable technical causes or solutions to the operator via the at least one machine interface (the term "preferably" makes the limitations that follow optional, thus the limitations are not addressed in this rejection).
With regard to claim 7, Mazzocco teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one electronic computing unit is configured to provide at least one proposal for a solution based on the calculated at least one technical cause to the operator via the at least one machine interface ("V. displaying (e.g. on a user-interface) a list containing technical solutions to the remaining causes in the subset, the list being ordered according to the statistical occurrence of the causes [par. 0012]").
With regard to claim 9, Mazzocco teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one electronic computing unit is configured to provide to the operator via the at least one machine interface at least one possible cause of or solution for the observation provided as input by the operator ("V. displaying (e.g. on a user-interface) a list containing technical solutions to the remaining causes in the subset, the list being ordered according to the statistical occurrence of the causes [par. 0012]").
With regard to claim 10, Mazzocco teaches the device according to claim 7, wherein the at least one electronic computing unit is configured to accept input by the operator specifying whether a proposed solution has worked and to use this input to update the statistics database ("If the implementation of the solutions goes well and solves the problem, all the relevant information about the case (from the problem to the solution) are preferably collected for statistical purposes and historical records relating to the specific press, mold, hot-runner, customer or other characteristics. In particular, the databases 38 and/or 40 and/or 42 and/or 44 and/or 46 are updated with the new collected data [par. 0086]" and "wherein the user inputs and/or the outputs of the unit relative to each phase are stored in database, in order to analyze the statistical and/or historical distribution of the data during the next cycle [claim 10]").
With regard to claim 11, Mazzocco teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one electronic computing unit is configured to accept input by the operator:
to build and/or update a specific knowledge model ("wherein the user inputs and/or the outputs of the unit relative to each phase are stored in database, in order to analyze the statistical and/or historical distribution of the data during the next cycle [claim 10]"), and/or
to build and/or update the statistics database.
Note: claim is presented in the alternative.
With regard to claims 13-15, 17, 19, 22, and 23, Mazzocco teaches claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10, and 11
above. Claims 13-15, 17, 19, 22, and 23 recite limitations have the same scope as those pertaining to claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10, and 11, respectively; therefore, claims 13-15, 17, 19, 22, and 23 are rejected along the same grounds as claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10, and 11.
With regard to claim 25, Mazzocco teaches a computer program which, when the program is executed by a computer, causes the computer to carry out a method according to claim 13 ("The server 32 (FIG. 3) is equipped with a processing unit 34 (e.g. a programmable microprocessor) on which a program is run which performs the steps of the method described below [par. 0048]").
With regard to claim 26, Mazzocco teaches a data carrier signal carrying the computer program of claim 25 ("The server 32 (FIG. 3) is equipped with a processing unit 34 (e.g. a programmable microprocessor) on which a program is run which performs the steps of the method described below [par. 0048]").
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.
Claims 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 18, 20, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzocco in view of Leung et al. [US Pub 2005/0060323] ("Leung").
With regard to claim 4, Mazzocco teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the at least one electronic computing unit is configured ("Preferably, in step I text input by an operator or his selection from a list or menu of likely causes or defects can be read [par. 0014]"),
wherein it is preferred that the list of possible observations is ordered according to the frequency of occurrence (the term "preferably" makes the limitations that follow optional, thus the limitations are not addressed in this rejection).
Mazzocco does not explicitly teach to provide a list of objects present in the specific production cell and to provide the list of possible observations based on a selection of a specific object made by the operator.
In an analogous art (diagnosing equipment failures), Leung teaches to provide a list of objects present in a machine and to provide a list of possible observations based on a selection of a specific object made by an operator ("The key inputs to the system, entered by the technician, are the identification of the machine or machine-process combination, a problem description in free form text, or as a selection out of a list of common problem descriptions, or a combination of both [par. 0026]" and "the user specified not just the machine, but also a component at some level in the machine hierarchy [par. 0058]" and "composing a list of component recommendations by ranking components by their overall failure probabilities and retrieving corresponding past solutions from the case base [claim 1]").
Leung further teaches, "It helps the technician quickly focus on a few highly probable failed components and therefore reduces the diagnosis time. It also improves the probability that the failed component(s) is correctly identified, reducing the need for further repair or a subsequent failure due to the same, unfixed problem. [par. 0006]."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified Mazzocco's teachings, with Leung's concept of providing a list of components and corresponding details, for the benefit of allowing a user to quickly focus on a few highly probable failed components thereby reducing diagnosis time. Additionally, in light of Mazzocco's teachings in paragraph 0014 and Leung's teachings in paragraph 0006, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have allowed the user to select components from a list in order to provide the user with a convenient interface to quickly focus on the few highly probable failed components.
With regard to claim 6, Mazzocco teaches the device according to claim 5, wherein the at least one electronic computing unit is configured to calculate the probabilities of the probable technical causes or solutions by using the frequencies of occurrence or probabilities of each technical cause or solution from the statistics database ("The display 14 then shows the list of possible causes which can also be ordered by the unit 34 according to a statistical occurrence. The number of statistical occurrences can be a data saved in the database 40 or calculated in real time by the unit 34 [par. 0074]")
preferably by using a shortest path algorithm or a maximum flow algorithm (the term "preferably" makes the limitations that follow optional, thus the limitations are not addressed in this rejection).
Mazzocco does not explicitly teach calculating the overall probability for the combination of the selected observation and object.
In an analogous art (diagnosing equipment failures), Leung teaches calculating an overall probability for a combination of a selected observation and object ("The key inputs to the system, entered by the technician, are the identification of the machine or machine-process combination, a problem description in free form text, or as a selection out of a list of common problem descriptions, or a combination of both [par. 0026]" and "the user specified not just the machine, but also a component at some level in the machine hierarchy [par. 0058]" and "for each component, calculating probability of matching problem description assuming that a component fails, using case based reasoning; for each component, combining the calculated probabilities to compute the overall failure probability given the historical behavior and published data and problem description [claim 1]").
Leung further teaches, "It helps the technician quickly focus on a few highly probable failed components and therefore reduces the diagnosis time. It also improves the probability that the failed component(s) is correctly identified, reducing the need for further repair or a subsequent failure due to the same, unfixed problem. [par. 0006]."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified Mazzocco's teachings, with Leung's concept of calculating probabilities, for the benefit of allowing a user to quickly focus on a few highly probable failed components thereby reducing diagnosis time.
With regard to claim 8, Mazzocco teaches the device according to claim 7, wherein the at least one electronic computing unit is configured to calculate the ("The display 14 then shows the list of possible causes which can also be ordered by the unit 34 according to a statistical occurrence. The number of statistical occurrences can be a data saved in the database 40 or calculated in real time by the unit 34 [par. 0074]").
Note: claim is presented in the alternative.
Mazzocco does not explicitly teach the combined probabilities or frequencies.
In an analogous art (diagnosing equipment failures), Leung teaches combined probabilities or frequencies ("for each component, calculating probability of matching problem description assuming that a component fails, using case based reasoning; for each component, combining the calculated probabilities to compute the overall failure probability given the historical behavior and published data and problem description [claim 1]").
Leung further teaches, "It helps the technician quickly focus on a few highly probable failed components and therefore reduces the diagnosis time. It also improves the probability that the failed component(s) is correctly identified, reducing the need for further repair or a subsequent failure due to the same, unfixed problem. [par. 0006]."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified Mazzocco's teachings, with Leung's concept of calculating probabilities, for the benefit of allowing a user to quickly focus on a few highly probable failed components thereby reducing diagnosis time.
With regard to claim 12, Mazzocco teaches the device according to claim 1. Mazzocco does not explicitly teach to identify at least two different objects which can exhibit a malfunction which is consistent with the observation of the operator of the specific production cell, provide the at least two identified objects to the operator via the at least one machine interface, accept user input by the operator selecting one of the at least two provided identified objects, and
calculate, using an algorithm, at least one technical cause of or solution for the specific combination of: the observation provided as user input by the operator, and the object selected by the operator.
In an analogous art (diagnosing equipment failures), Leung teaches to identify at least two different objects which can exhibit a malfunction which is consistent with an observation of an operator of a machine, provide the at least two identified objects to the operator via at least one machine interface, accept user input by the operator selecting one of the at least two provided identified objects ("The key inputs to the system, entered by the technician, are the identification of the machine or machine-process combination, a problem description in free form text, or as a selection out of a list of common problem descriptions, or a combination of both [par. 0026]" and "the user specified not just the machine, but also a component at some level in the machine hierarchy [par. 0058]" and "composing a list of component recommendations by ranking components by their overall failure probabilities and retrieving corresponding past solutions from the case base [claim 1]"), and
calculate, using an algorithm, at least one technical cause of or solution for the specific combination of: the observation provided as user input by the operator, and the object selected by the operator ("for each component, calculating probability of matching problem description assuming that a component fails, using case based reasoning; for each component, combining the calculated probabilities to compute the overall failure probability given the historical behavior and published data and problem description [claim 1]").
Leung further teaches, "It helps the technician quickly focus on a few highly probable failed components and therefore reduces the diagnosis time. It also improves the probability that the failed component(s) is correctly identified, reducing the need for further repair or a subsequent failure due to the same, unfixed problem. [par. 0006]."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified Mazzocco's teachings, with Leung's concept of providing a list of components and corresponding details, for the benefit of allowing a user to quickly focus on a few highly probable failed components thereby reducing diagnosis time. Additionally, in light of Mazzocco's teachings in paragraph 0014 and Leung's teachings in paragraph 0006, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have allowed the user to select components from a list in order to provide the user with a convenient interface to quickly focus on the few highly probable failed components.
With regard to claims 16, 18, and 20, the combination above teaches claims 4, 6, and 8. Claims 16, 18, and 20 recite limitations having the same scope as those pertaining to claims 4, 6, and 8, respectively; therefore, claims 16, 18, and 20 are rejected along the same grounds as claims 4, 6, and 8.
With regard to claim 21, Mazzocco teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the at least one electronic computing unit provides to the operator via the at least one machine interface at least one possible cause for the observation provided as user input by the operator ("V. displaying (e.g. on a user-interface) a list containing technical solutions to the remaining causes in the subset, the list being ordered according to the statistical occurrence of the causes [par. 0012]") .
Mazzocco does not explicitly teach the objected selected by the operator.
In an analogous art (diagnosing equipment failures), Leung teaches an object selected by an operator ("The key inputs to the system, entered by the technician, are the identification of the machine or machine-process combination, a problem description in free form text, or as a selection out of a list of common problem descriptions, or a combination of both [par. 0026]" and "the user specified not just the machine, but also a component at some level in the machine hierarchy [par. 0058]").
Leung further teaches, "It helps the technician quickly focus on a few highly probable failed components and therefore reduces the diagnosis time. It also improves the probability that the failed component(s) is correctly identified, reducing the need for further repair or a subsequent failure due to the same, unfixed problem. [par. 0006]."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified Mazzocco's teachings, with Leung's concept of providing a list of components, for the benefit of allowing a user to quickly focus on a few highly probable failed components thereby reducing diagnosis time. Additionally, in light of Mazzocco's teachings in paragraph 0014 and Leung's teachings in paragraph 0006, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have allowed the user to select components from a list in order to provide the user with a convenient interface to quickly focus on the few highly probable failed components.
With regard to claim 24, the combination above teaches claim 12. Claim 24 recites limitations having the same scope as those pertaining to claim 24; therefore, claim 12 is rejected along the same grounds as claim 24.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ahamed et al. [US Pat. 5,809,493] teaches a knowledge processing system for storing knowledge in a plurality of knowledge modules in a knowledge bank, in which the knowledge includes data associated with pre-existing solutions to previous problems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT W CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1214. The examiner can normally be reached (M-F) 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
VINCENT WEN-LIANG CHANG
Examiner
Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights