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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-15 are pending in the application and have been examined.
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(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the analysis which follows.
For purposes of compact prosecution and clarity, designations have been assigned to limitations of as follows:
(A) “”
(B) “”
(C) “”
(D) “”
(E) “”
() “”
() “”
() “”
Step 1 – Statutory Category Determination - MPEP § 2106.03
Under Eligibility Step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Eligibility Step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a . Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong One – Does the claim recite an abstract idea? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong One analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, with respect to independent claim , the following claim limitation(s) recite abstract idea(s):
Abstract Ideas:
Claim limitation(s) (A) and ()-() fall within at least one of the three enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Mental Processes – MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III):
Claim limitation(s) (A) and ()-() fall within the mental process grouping of patent ineligible subject matter. Each limitation relates to functions that could be performed alternatively as mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind or using pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) where our reviewing court held that 35 U.S.C. § 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. See also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Claim limitations (A) and ()-() encompass concepts within the mental process abstract idea grouping in that that capable of being performed in the human mind, by a human using a pen and paper Limitations (A) and ()-() include concepts that exemplify processes performed in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions.
Furthermore, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
Step 2A, Prong Two - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). This conclusion follows from the claim limitations which only recite a generic outside of the abstract idea.
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of a(n) do(es) not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
A plain reading of the figures and associated descriptions in the specification reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Extra-solution activity – See MPEP §2106.05(g)
In addition, limitation(s) () constitute(s) insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More – See MPEP § 2106.05:
Under the Step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as a(n) ” does/do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A; Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the rejected dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim. None of the rejected dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., “” in Claims ).
Regarding Claims : These claims depend from Claim and only add further details to the steps in that independent claim and do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims are merely going into more detail regarding . Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible and are also rejected on the same grounds provided for in the rejection of Claim .
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the analysis which follows.
For purposes of compact prosecution and clarity, designations have been assigned to limitations of as follows:
(A) “”
(B) “”
(C) “”
(D) “”
(E) “”
() “”
() “”
() “”
Step 1 – Statutory Category Determination - MPEP § 2106.03
Under Eligibility Step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Eligibility Step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a . Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong One – Does the claim recite an abstract idea? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong One analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, with respect to independent claim , the following claim limitation(s) recite abstract idea(s):
Abstract Ideas:
Claim limitation(s) (A) and ()-() fall within at least one of the three enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Mental Processes – MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III):
Claim limitation(s) (A) and ()-() fall within the mental process grouping of patent ineligible subject matter. Each limitation relates to functions that could be performed alternatively as mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind or using pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) where our reviewing court held that 35 U.S.C. § 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. See also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Claim limitations (A) and ()-() encompass concepts within the mental process abstract idea grouping in that that capable of being performed in the human mind, by a human using a pen and paper Limitations (A) and ()-() include concepts that exemplify processes performed in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions.
Furthermore, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
Step 2A, Prong Two - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). This conclusion follows from the claim limitations which only recite a generic outside of the abstract idea.
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of a(n) do(es) not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
A plain reading of the figures and associated descriptions in the specification reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Extra-solution activity – See MPEP §2106.05(g)
In addition, limitation(s) (B) constitute(s) insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More – See MPEP § 2106.05:
Under the Step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as a(n) ” does/do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A; Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the rejected dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim. None of the rejected dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., “” in 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) 1, 4, 7, 10, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadota et al. (JPH1020932A) hereinafter Kadota, Kikuchi et al. (JP2019022306A) hereinafter Kikuchi, and Tamura (JP2004157788A) hereinafter Tamura.
Claim 1:
Kadota discloses a health assessment apparatus to assess health of a the terminal node being a node for which there is no lower node to depend on [16], to obtain dependency information, in which dependencies between the plurality of nodes and significances representing strengths of the dependencies are set with the vehicle composition at top, from a dependency database that stores the dependency information, and for an assessment target node [goal 1], among the plurality of nodes, that is being assessed and for which there are a plurality of lower nodes to depend on [¶¶5-9].
Kadota doesn’t explicitly disclose to dynamically determine an integration process to integrate a health assessment value of the lower node in accordance with a relationship of magnitude between the health assessment value of the lower node and each of a plurality of thresholds, and to calculate a health assessment value of the assessment target node through the dynamically determined integration process, to determine whether or not there is a lower node, among the plurality of lower nodes, that has a health assessment value equal to or smaller than a second threshold, the second threshold being smallest of the plurality of thresholds, and to perform processing to, if there is no lower node that has a health assessment value equal to or smaller than the second threshold among the plurality of lower nodes, determine whether or not each one of the plurality of lower nodes has a health assessment value equal to or greater than a first threshold, the first threshold being greatest of the plurality of thresholds, and for a lower node that has a health assessment value smaller than the first threshold, as the integration process, to obtain the significance corresponding to said lower node from the dependency information as a corresponding significance and to calculate an integrated significance by multiplying the corresponding significance by a weighting factor which is defined in accordance with the relationship of magnitude between the health assessment value of said lower node and each of the plurality of thresholds, and for a lower node that has a health assessment value equal to or greater than the first threshold, to obtain the corresponding significance as the integrated significance, to multiply the health assessment value of each lower node by the integrated significance, to add values resulting from multiplications, and to set a value resulting from the addition as the health assessment value for the assessment target node; the use of thresholds to determine higher and lower health assessment values for abnormality detection; (the composition is a) vehicle.
Kikuchi discloses to dynamically determine an integration process to integrate a health assessment value of the lower node in accordance with a relationship of magnitude between the health assessment value of the lower node and each of a plurality of thresholds, and to calculate a health assessment value of the assessment target node through the dynamically determined integration process [¶¶4, 12-14]; the use of thresholds to determine higher and lower health assessment values for abnormality detection [¶¶4, 12-14] (the composition is a) vehicle [Items 140, 200].
Tamura discloses to determine whether or not there is a lower node, among the plurality of lower nodes, that has a health assessment value equal to or smaller than a second threshold, the second threshold being smallest of the plurality of thresholds, and to perform processing to, if there is no lower node that has a health assessment value equal to or smaller than the second threshold among the plurality of lower nodes, determine whether or not each one of the plurality of lower nodes has a health assessment value equal to or greater than a first threshold, the first threshold being greatest of the plurality of thresholds, and for a lower node that has a health assessment value smaller than the first threshold, as the integration process, to obtain the significance corresponding to said lower node from the dependency information as a corresponding significance and to calculate an integrated significance by multiplying the corresponding significance by a weighting factor which is defined in accordance with the relationship of magnitude between the health assessment value of said lower node and each of the plurality of thresholds, and for a lower node that has a health assessment value equal to or greater than the first threshold, to obtain the corresponding significance as the integrated significance, to multiply the health assessment value of each lower node by the integrated significance, to add values resulting from multiplications, and to set a value resulting from the addition as the health assessment value for the assessment target node; [¶¶43-45, specifically λ-fuzzy integration, weighted average model, critical item method which is known to determine health of higher-order items based by the worst performance for lower-order items] except for the specific use of thresholds to determine higher and lower health assessment values for abnormality detection which is disclosed by Kikuchi [¶¶4, 12-14].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the abnormality diagnosing device of Kadota with the vehicle and integration process of Kikuchi to provide a known means of determining if an abnormality exists within a vehicle
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the abnormality diagnosing device of Kadota and Kikuchi with the analysis types of Tamura to provide a known means of determining a system performance based on the lowest-health component.
Claim 4:
Kadota, Kikuchi, and Tamura, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Kadota doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein if there is a lower node having a health assessment value equal to or smaller than the second threshold among the plurality of lower nodes, the processing circuitry performs processing to set a smallest health assessment value of the respective health assessment values of the plurality of lower nodes to be the health assessment value for the assessment target node as the integration process.
However, Tamura discloses wherein if there is a lower node having a health assessment value equal to or smaller than the second threshold among the plurality of lower nodes, the processing circuitry performs processing to set a smallest health assessment value of the respective health assessment values of the plurality of lower nodes to be the health assessment value for the assessment target node as the integration process. [¶¶43-46]
Claim 7:
Kadota, Kikuchi, and Tamura, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Kadota doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the dependency database stores the dependency information in which the dependencies are defined by directed graphs and significances of the dependencies are associated with the directed graphs.
However, Tamura discloses wherein the dependency database stores the dependency information in which the dependencies are defined by directed graphs and significances of the dependencies are associated with the directed graphs. [¶¶43-46]
Claim 10:
Kadota, Kikuchi, and Tamura, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Kadota doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry takes a node for which there are nodes on which that node is dependent among the plurality of nodes as the assessment target node in sequence, and calculates the health assessment value for the assessment target node, and when calculation of health assessment values is completed for all the nodes on which the vehicle composition is dependent, calculates a health assessment value for the vehicle composition.
However, Kikuchi discloses wherein the processing circuitry takes a node for which there are nodes on which that node is dependent among the plurality of nodes as the assessment target node in sequence, and calculates the health assessment value for the assessment target node, and when calculation of health assessment values is completed for all the nodes on which the vehicle composition is dependent, calculates a health assessment value for the vehicle composition. [¶¶4, 12-14]
Claim 14:
Kadota discloses a health assessment method for use with a health assessment apparatus to assess health of a vehicle composition [13] made up of a plurality of nodes [17], the health assessment method comprising: calculating [18] a health assessment value representing health for a terminal node [flow structure 3] among the plurality of nodes, the terminal node being a node for which there is no lower node to depend on [16]; and performing processing to obtain dependency information, in which dependencies between the plurality of nodes and significances representing strengths of the dependencies are set with the vehicle composition at top, from a dependency database that stores the dependency information, and for an assessment target node [goal 1], among the plurality of nodes, that is being assessed and for which there are a plurality of lower nodes to depend on [¶¶5-9].
Kadota doesn’t explicitly disclose to dynamically determine an integration process to integrate a health assessment value of the lower node in accordance with a relationship of magnitude between the health assessment value of the lower node and each of a plurality of thresholds, and to calculate a health assessment value of the assessment target node through the dynamically determined integration process, wherein it is determined whether or not there is a lower node, among the plurality of lower nodes, that has a health assessment value equal to or smaller than a second threshold, the second threshold being smallest of the plurality of thresholds, and if there is no lower node that has a health assessment value equal to or smaller than the second threshold among the plurality of lower nodes, it is determined whether or not each one of the plurality of lower nodes has a health assessment value equal to or greater than a first threshold, the first threshold being greatest of the plurality of thresholds, and for a lower node that has a health assessment value smaller than the first threshold, as the integration process, the significance corresponding to said lower node is obtained from the dependency information as a corresponding significance and an integrated significance is calculated by multiplying the corresponding significance by a weighting factor which is defined in accordance with the relationship of magnitude between the health assessment value of said lower node and each of the plurality of thresholds, and for a lower node that has a health assessment value equal to or greater than the first threshold, the corresponding significance is obtained as the integrated significance, the health assessment value of each lower node is multiplied by the integrated significance, values resulting from multiplications are added, and a value resulting from the addition is set as the health assessment value for the assessment target node; the use of thresholds to determine higher and lower health assessment values for abnormality detection; (the composition is a) vehicle.
Kikuchi discloses to dynamically determine an integration process to integrate a health assessment value of the lower node in accordance with a relationship of magnitude between the health assessment value of the lower node and each of a plurality of thresholds, and to calculate a health assessment value of the assessment target node through the dynamically determined integration process, [¶¶4, 12-14] (the composition is a) vehicle [Items 140, 200].
Tamura discloses wherein it is determined whether or not there is a lower node, among the plurality of lower nodes, that has a health assessment value equal to or smaller than a second threshold, the second threshold being smallest of the plurality of thresholds, and if there is no lower node that has a health assessment value equal to or smaller than the second threshold among the plurality of lower nodes, it is determined whether or not each one of the plurality of lower nodes has a health assessment value equal to or greater than a first threshold, the first threshold being greatest of the plurality of thresholds, and for a lower node that has a health assessment value smaller than the first threshold, as the integration process, the significance corresponding to said lower node is obtained from the dependency information as a corresponding significance and an integrated significance is calculated by multiplying the corresponding significance by a weighting factor which is defined in accordance with the relationship of magnitude between the health assessment value of said lower node and each of the plurality of thresholds, and for a lower node that has a health assessment value equal to or greater than the first threshold, the corresponding significance is obtained as the integrated significance, the health assessment value of each lower node is multiplied by the integrated significance, values resulting from multiplications are added, and a value resulting from the addition is set as the health assessment value for the assessment target node [¶¶43-45, specifically λ-fuzzy integration, weighted average model, critical item method which is known to determine health of higher-order items based by the worst performance for lower-order items] except for the specific use of thresholds to determine higher and lower health assessment values for abnormality detection which is disclosed by Kikuchi [¶¶4, 12-14].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the abnormality diagnosing device of Kadota with the vehicle and integration process of Kikuchi to provide a known means of determining if an abnormality exists within a vehicle
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the abnormality diagnosing device of Kadota and Kikuchi with the analysis types of Tamura to provide a known means of determining a system performance based on the lowest-health component.
Claim 15:
Kadota discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a health assessment program for use with a health assessment apparatus to assess health of a
Kadota doesn’t explicitly disclose to dynamically determine an integration process to integrate a health assessment value of the lower node in accordance with a relationship of magnitude between the health assessment value of the lower node and each of a plurality of thresholds, and to calculate a health assessment value of the assessment target node through the dynamically determined integration process, wherein the composition assessment process includes a determination process to determine whether or not there is a lower node, among the plurality of lower nodes, that has a health assessment value equal to or smaller than a second threshold, the second threshold being smallest of the plurality of thresholds, and an assessment value calculation process to perform processing to, if there is no lower node that has a health assessment value equal to or smaller than the second threshold among the plurality of lower nodes, determine whether or not each one of the plurality of lower nodes has a health assessment value equal to or greater than a first threshold, the first threshold being greatest of the plurality of thresholds, and for a lower node that has a health assessment value smaller than the first threshold, as the integration process, to obtain the significance corresponding to said lower node from the dependency information as a corresponding significance and to calculate an integrated significance by multiplying the corresponding significance by a weighting factor which is defined in accordance with the relationship of magnitude between the health assessment value of said lower node and each of the plurality of thresholds, and for a lower node that has a health assessment value equal to or greater than the first threshold, to obtain the corresponding significance as the integrated significance, to multiply the health assessment value of each lower node by the integrated significance, to add values resulting from multiplications, and to set a value resulting from the addition as the health assessment value for the assessment target node; (the composition is a) vehicle.
Kikuchi discloses to dynamically determine an integration process to integrate a health assessment value of the lower node in accordance with a relationship of magnitude between the health assessment value of the lower node and each of a plurality of thresholds, and to calculate a health assessment value of the assessment target node through the dynamically determined integration process [¶¶4, 12-14].
Tamura discloses wherein the composition assessment process includes a determination process to determine whether or not there is a lower node, among the plurality of lower nodes, that has a health assessment value equal to or smaller than a second threshold, the second threshold being smallest of the plurality of thresholds, and an assessment value calculation process to perform processing to, if there is no lower node that has a health assessment value equal to or smaller than the second threshold among the plurality of lower nodes, determine whether or not each one of the plurality of lower nodes has a health assessment value equal to or greater than a first threshold, the first threshold being greatest of the plurality of thresholds, and for a lower node that has a health assessment value smaller than the first threshold, as the integration process, to obtain the significance corresponding to said lower node from the dependency information as a corresponding significance and to calculate an integrated significance by multiplying the corresponding significance by a weighting factor which is defined in accordance with the relationship of magnitude between the health assessment value of said lower node and each of the plurality of thresholds, and for a lower node that has a health assessment value equal to or greater than the first threshold, to obtain the corresponding significance as the integrated significance, to multiply the health assessment value of each lower node by the integrated significance, to add values resulting from multiplications, and to set a value resulting from the addition as the health assessment value for the assessment target node [¶¶43-45, specifically λ-fuzzy integration, weighted average model, critical item method which is known to determine health of higher-order items based by the worst performance for lower-order items] except for the specific use of thresholds to determine higher and lower health assessment values for abnormality detection which is disclosed by Kikuchi [¶¶4, 12-14].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the abnormality diagnosing device of Kadota with the vehicle and integration process of Kikuchi to provide a known means of determining if an abnormality exists within a vehicle
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the abnormality diagnosing device of Kadota and Kikuchi with the analysis types of Tamura to provide a known means of determining a system performance based on the lowest-health component.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571)272-1196. 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights