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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application and preliminary amendment filed on 04/16/2025.
Claims 2-13 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 15-16 and 18-19 have been canceled.
Claims 1-14 and 17 are currently pending and have been examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0074] recites “The terminal device 6a of the user receives the report data transmitted from the information processing apparatus 5 at step S17 (step S19)” when it appears it should recite “The terminal device 6a of the user receives the report data transmitted from the information processing apparatus 5
Paragraph [0075] recites “The terminal device 6b of the sales representative receives the report data transmitted from the information processing apparatus 5 at step S17 (step S20)” when it appears it should recite “The terminal device 6b of the sales representative receives the report data transmitted from the information processing apparatus 5
Paragraph [0076] recites “The processing unit 51 of the second server receives the report data transmitted from the first server at step S17 (step S21)” when it appears it should recite “The processing unit 51 of the second server receives the report data transmitted from the first server (step S21)” to match the Figures
Additionally, paragraph [0076] recites “…request securing of a spear part…” when it appears it should recite “…request securing of a spare part…” to correct an apparent typographical error
Appropriate correction is required.
Additionally, the title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, INFORMATION PROCESSINGAPPARATUS AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM FOR ESTIMATING REPLACEMENT COSTS OF MOLDING MACHINE COMPONENTS
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
MPEP 2111.04 II. recites, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”. Claim 9 is a method claim that recites the following contingent limitations: “generating the estimate data in a case where securing a spare part for the component is required”, “executing processing related to securing a spare part for the component that needs to be replaced in a case where securing a spare part for the component is required”, and “offering the estimate data in a case where a request for the estimate data from the user is present” (emphasis added). Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of method claim 9 only requires the limitations of “determining whether or not securing a spare part for the component is required based on a remaining life or an abnormality degree of the component” and “offering the inference result to the user” to be performed.
Specifically, in the case where a securing a spare part is not required (i.e. the decision made at claim 9 limitation “determining whether or not securing a spare part for the component is required based on a remaining life or an abnormality degree of the component” is NO), neither of the limitations of “generating the estimate data” and “executing processing related to securing a spare part for the component that needs to be replaced” are required to be performed. Additionally in a case where a user does not request the estimate data, the claim 9 limitation of “offering the estimate data” does not need to be performed. While prior art has been applied to these limitations below in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes here that claim 9 does not require its recited contingent limitations under broadest reasonable 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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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 limitations are:
“an acquisition unit” in claim 14
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Paragraph [0066] of the specification recites, “Note that the processing unit 51, which executes the processing at step S13, functions as an acquisition unit that acquires physical quantity data”. However, Examiner notes that while the specification as filed recites that the processing unit can function as an acquisition unit, the specification as filed fails to provide any physical structure for what the generic placeholder “acquisition unit” Applicant is referring to actually is. In other words, while the specification recites that a processing unit can perform the functions of an acquisition unit, the specification is silent regarding what physical structure the Applicant considers to be an acquisition unit. Therefore, “an acquisition unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), but the specification fails to provide sufficient structure for “an acquisition unit”. Additionally, while [0066] recites that executing the functions of step S13 of receiving transmitted physical quantity data allows a processing unit to “function” as an acquisition device, there is no sufficient corresponding algorithm in the specification for the broader acquisition unit function of “acquiring” physical quantity data recited in claim 14. In other words, while the specification indicates that receiving data as in S13 may be an example of functioning as an acquisition unit, the specification does not provide an algorithm for performing the entirety of the claimed functions of the acquisition unit. Accordingly, “acquisition unit” lacks a corresponding algorithm as well as physical structure. See the 35 U.S.C. 112 section below.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Examiner also notes here that “processing unit” and “storage unit” are NOT being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because “a processing unit” is defined in the specification as a processor (see [0039] “The processing unit 51, which is a processor, includes…”), and “storage unit” is defined in the specification as nonvolatile memory (see [0042] “The storage unit 52 is a nonvolatile memory…”). Thus, the structure for these terms in the context of the present application is explicitly defined by Applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed above in the claim interpretation section and again below in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, “acquisition unit” of claim 14 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) without having sufficient structure or a corresponding algorithm for performing its claimed functions disclosed in the specification. MPEP 2181 II.B. recites “When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)”. In other words, because the specification lacks corresponding physical structure for what an “acquisition unit” is and a corresponding algorithm for how the acquisition unit “acquires” the physical data, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized that Applicant had possession of any and all possible interpretations of what an acquisition unit could be and possible ways the acquisition unit could perform its claimed functions. Therefore, claim 14 lacks sufficient written description.
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.
Claim 14 limitation “an acquisition unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above, there is no physical structure provided for “acquisition unit” nor a corresponding algorithm for how the acquisition unit performs the claimed function of “acquiring” the physical quantity data. With “acquisition unit” invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) without sufficient structure being provided in the specification, the metes and bounds of what physical structure (and equivalents) is being claimed as an acquisition unit in claim 14 and what corresponding algorithm is being used to perform the claimed function are not clear to one of ordinary skill in the art. While [0066] recites that a processing unit can function as an acquisition unit by receiving physical quantity data, claim 14 recites a processing unit and acquisition unit as different components and recites that the acquisition unit performs the broader “acquiring” instead of merely “receiving” data. Therefore, what is meant physically by “acquisition unit” and what other potential ways of acquiring such physical data are covered in “acquiring” are not clear to one of ordinary skill in the art when viewing the claimed invention of claim 14 in light of the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Examiner notes here that for the purposes of examination, “acquisition unit” in claim 14 is being interpreted as being embodied in a processor and receiving data from other devices as “acquiring” the data.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite estimating a replacement cost for a component part based on the inferred remaining life of the component.
As an initial matter, claims 1-13 fall into at least the process category of statutory subject matter. Claim 14 falls into at least the machine category of statutory subject matter. Finally, claim 17 falls into at least the manufacture category of statutory subject matter. Therefore, all claims fall into at least one of the statutory categories. Eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
In claim 1, the limitation of “An information processing method, comprising: acquiring physical quantity data related to a condition of a component constituting a molding machine”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “inferring a remaining life or an abnormality degree of the component based on the acquired physical quantity data; generating estimate data indicating a replacement cost for the component that needs to be replaced based on an inference result concerning a remaining life or an abnormality degree of the component; and offering the generated estimate data to a user of the molding machine”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the concept of estimating a replacement cost of a molding machine component for a user of the molding machine which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. An information processing method, comprising: acquiring physical quantity data related to a condition of a component constituting a molding machine; inferring a remaining life or an abnormality degree of the component based on the acquired physical quantity data; generating estimate data indicating a replacement cost for the component that needs to be replaced based on an inference result concerning a remaining life or an abnormality degree of the component; and offering the generated estimate data to a user of the molding machine all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As shown above, the entirety of claim 1 falls into the judicial exceptions of Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Therefore, claim 1 recites no additional elements. MPEP 2106.04 II.A.2. states “Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B. If there are no additional elements in the claim, then it cannot be eligible” (emphasis added). Therefore, because claim 1 does not recite any additional elements, claim 1 does not integrate its judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, nor does the claim amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-9 further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 10 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional element of a storage unit. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a storage unit is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 11-12 further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 13 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional element of a storage unit. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a storage unit is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In claim 14, the limitation of “an acquisition unit that acquires physical quantity data related to a condition of a component constituting a molding machine”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “An information processing apparatus, comprising: an acquisition unit,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “and a processing unit, the processing unit inferring a remaining life or an abnormality degree of the component based on the acquired physical quantity data, generating estimate data indicating a replacement cost for the component that needs to be replaced based on an inference result concerning a remaining life or an abnormality degree of the component, and offering the generated estimate data to a user of the molding machine”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 14 recites the concept of estimating a replacement cost of a molding machine component for a user of the molding machine which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Acquires physical quantity data related to a condition of a component constituting a molding machine; and inferring a remaining life or an abnormality degree of the component based on the acquired physical quantity data, generating estimate data indicating a replacement cost for the component that needs to be replaced based on an inference result concerning a remaining life or an abnormality degree of the component, and offering the generated estimate data to a user of the molding machine all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an information processing apparatus, an acquisition unit, and a processing unit. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an information processing apparatus, an acquisition unit, and a processing unit amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In claim 17, the limitation of “acquiring physical quantity data related to a condition of a component constituting a molding machine”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a computer program causing a computer to execute processing of,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “inferring a remaining life or an abnormality degree of the component based on the acquired physical quantity data; generating estimate data indicating a replacement cost for the component that needs to be replaced based on an inference result concerning a remaining life or an abnormality degree of the component; and offering the generated estimate data to a user of the molding machine”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 17 recites the concept of estimating a replacement cost of a molding machine component for a user of the molding machine which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Execute processing of: acquiring physical quantity data related to a condition of a component constituting a molding machine; inferring a remaining life or an abnormality degree of the component based on the acquired physical quantity data; generating estimate data indicating a replacement cost for the component that needs to be replaced based on an inference result concerning a remaining life or an abnormality degree of the component; and offering the generated estimate data to a user of the molding machine all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer and a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a computer program. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computer and a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a computer program amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 13-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minemura (Japanese Publication No. 2020-093506, hereafter known as Minemura).
Regarding claim 1, Minemura teaches:
An information processing method, comprising (see [0037]-[0083] for the overall method)
acquiring physical quantity data related to a condition of a component constituting a molding machine (see [0044] "The state monitoring diagnosis unit 3 monitors and diagnoses the deterioration state of the inspection target unit. Here, the deterioration state of the inspection target portion includes, for example, fatigue, deterioration, wear, failure, abnormality, and the like. The state monitoring diagnosis unit 3 diagnoses the deterioration state of the inspection target unit based on at least one of the cumulative operation time of the inspection target unit, the cumulative shot number of the inspection target unit, and the cumulative load of the inspection target unit, for example" and [0040] "Here, the inspection target portion is, for example, a component to be inspected by the injection molding machines 11 to 12 or a component of the injection molding machines 11 to 12 to be subjected to maintenance. Examples of the inspection target portion include a ball screw of the motion conversion mechanism 170, a bush (wear component) of the toggle mechanism 150, a ball screw of the drive mechanism 220, a ball screw that drives the screw of the injection device 300 in the axial direction, a frame 900, and the like")
inferring a remaining life or an abnormality degree of the component based on the acquired physical quantity data (see [0052] "the state monitoring diagnosis unit 3 diagnoses the remaining life (an example of the deterioration state) of the inspection target unit on the basis of at least one of the cumulative operation time of the inspection target unit, the cumulative shot number of the inspection target unit, and the cumulative load of the inspection target unit")
generating estimate data indicating a replacement cost for the component that needs to be replaced based on an inference result concerning a remaining life or an abnormality degree of the component (see [0050]-[0056], particularly [0051] "The maintenance price determination unit 7 determines a maintenance price on the basis of a component margin of the inspection target portion to be replaced during maintenance, a wage at the time of maintenance of the inspection target portion, and a weighting coefficient" and [0052] "The maintenance price determination unit 7 determines the weighting coefficient based on the remaining life of the inspection target unit. Here, the weighting coefficient based on the remaining life of the inspection target portion may be set such that the weighting coefficient becomes smaller as the remaining life is longer, and the weighting coefficient becomes larger as the remaining life is shorter. As a result, the maintenance price determination unit 7 decreases the maintenance price as the remaining life is longer, and increases the maintenance price as the remaining life is shorter" for generating a maintenance price to replace a component of an injection molding machine based on the estimated remaining life of the component)
and offering the generated estimate data to a user of the molding machine (see Figs. 3-5 and [0061]-[0075] for display screen showing the determined maintenance price to a user)
Regarding claim 2, Minemura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Minemura further teaches:
varying a replacement cost for the component depending on a length of a remaining life of the component and a magnitude of an abnormality degree of the component (see [0044] "The state monitoring diagnosis unit 3 monitors and diagnoses the deterioration state of the inspection target unit. Here, the deterioration state of the inspection target portion includes, for example, fatigue, deterioration, wear, failure, abnormality, and the like. The state monitoring diagnosis unit 3 diagnoses the deterioration state of the inspection target unit based on at least one of the cumulative operation time of the inspection target unit, the cumulative shot number of the inspection target unit, and the cumulative load of the inspection target unit, for example" and [0052] "the state monitoring diagnosis unit 3 diagnoses the remaining life (an example of the deterioration state) of the inspection target unit on the basis of at least one of the cumulative operation time of the inspection target unit, the cumulative shot number of the inspection target unit, and the cumulative load of the inspection target unit" for determining a remaining life of a component based on abnormality of the component. See the remainder of [0052] and [0051] for varying the replacement cost based on the remaining life/abnormality)
Regarding claim 4, Minemura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Minemura further teaches:
acquiring data indicating an operation environment or an operation location of the molding machine (see [0044] “The state monitoring diagnosis unit 3 monitors and diagnoses the deterioration state of the inspection target unit. Here, the deterioration state of the inspection target portion includes, for example, fatigue, deterioration, wear, failure, abnormality, and the like. The state monitoring diagnosis unit 3 diagnoses the deterioration state of the inspection target unit based on at least one of the cumulative operation time of the inspection target unit, the cumulative shot number of the inspection target unit, and the cumulative load of the inspection target unit, for example” for acquiring data indicating an operation environment of the of the molding machine in the form of how long the component has been running, cumulative shot number and cumulative load imposed upon the component/machine)
and varying a replacement cost for the component depending on an operation environment or an operation location indicated by the acquired data (see [0050]-[0056], particularly [0051] "The maintenance price determination unit 7 determines a maintenance price on the basis of a component margin of the inspection target portion to be replaced during maintenance, a wage at the time of maintenance of the inspection target portion, and a weighting coefficient" and [0052] "The maintenance price determination unit 7 determines the weighting coefficient based on the remaining life of the inspection target unit. Here, the weighting coefficient based on the remaining life of the inspection target portion may be set such that the weighting coefficient becomes smaller as the remaining life is longer, and the weighting coefficient becomes larger as the remaining life is shorter. As a result, the maintenance price determination unit 7 decreases the maintenance price as the remaining life is longer, and increases the maintenance price as the remaining life is shorter" for generating a maintenance price to replace a component of an injection molding machine based on the estimated remaining life of the component. See [0076] for the stat monitoring diagnosis unit determining the remaining life based on operating time of the equipment acquired in the above limitation)
Regarding claim 5, Minemura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Minemura further teaches:
offering the inference result to the user (see [0076] "In the display screen 80B, the component names 93 of the plurality of components to be the inspection target portions are displayed, respectively. Here, "ball screw", "motor", "power module", "relay", "battery", and the like are displayed. In addition, a bar 94 and a numerical value display column 95 indicating the remaining life of the inspection target portion are displayed in correspondence with the inspection target portion. The values of the bar 94 and the numerical value display field 95 are set to 0% when the inspection target portion is not used (immediately after maintenance), and 100% at the end of the life of the inspection target portion. That is, the longer the length of the bar 94, the smaller the remaining life of the inspection target portion as the value of the numerical value display field 95 becomes larger. The remaining life of the inspection target portion is calculated by the state monitoring and diagnosis portion 3")
acquiring feedback information from the user for the inference result (see [0069] "An operation button 90 for requesting maintenance is displayed on the display screen 80. When a client requesting maintenance selects the operation button 90 with a pointing device or the like, the CPU 21 of the management device 20 transmits a maintenance request to the maintenance server 40. At this time, the information of the injection molding machine may be transmitted. Further, when the operation button 90 is selected and operated, for example, in a case where the maintenance price decreases soon (for example, in a case where the maintenance price decreases due to a period in which the maintenance price decreases), an alert may be displayed" and [0077] "As described above, by displaying the remaining life of the plurality of inspection target portions in a list on the display screen 80B, the information presentation device 1 can assist the client requesting the maintenance to easily grasp the inspection target portion in which maintenance is performed")
and varying a replacement cost for the component depending on the acquired feedback information (see [0053] "the maintenance price determination unit 7 determines the weighting coefficient based on the maintenance plan. For example, the weighting coefficient may be smaller as the period between the date and time at which the maintenance of the inspection target portion is requested and the date and time when the maintenance of the inspection target portion is actually performed is longer, and the weighting coefficient may be set to be larger as the period becomes shorter. As a result, the maintenance price determination unit 7 decreases the maintenance price as the period becomes longer, and increases the maintenance price as the period becomes shorter" for varying the replacement cost of the component based on the feedback of a date and time of a maintenance request inputted by the user)
Regarding claim 9, Minemura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Minemura further teaches:
determining whether or not securing a spare part for the component is required based on a remaining life or an abnormality degree of the component (see [0076] “the component names 93 of the plurality of components to be the inspection target portions are displayed, respectively. Here, "ball screw", "motor", "power module", "relay", "battery", and the like are displayed. In addition, a bar 94 and a numerical value display column 95 indicating the remaining life of the inspection target portion are displayed in correspondence with the inspection target portion. The values of the bar 94 and the numerical value display field 95 are set to 0% when the inspection target portion is not used (immediately after maintenance), and 100% at the end of the life of the inspection target portion… As a result, it is possible to provide a guide for preparing the maintenance of the inspection target portion (for example, an estimation request). When the inspection target portion is continuously used even after the end of the life, a value of 100% or more is displayed on the value of the numerical value display field 95” for the determination that a component part has reached or surpassed the end of its useful life and needs replacement)
generating the estimate data in a case where securing a spare part for the component is required (see [0050]-[0056], particularly [0051] "The maintenance price determination unit 7 determines a maintenance price on the basis of a component margin of the inspection target portion to be replaced during maintenance, a wage at the time of maintenance of the inspection target portion, and a weighting coefficient" and [0052] "The maintenance price determination unit 7 determines the weighting coefficient based on the remaining life of the inspection target unit. Here, the weighting coefficient based on the remaining life of the inspection target portion may be set such that the weighting coefficient becomes smaller as the remaining life is longer, and the weighting coefficient becomes larger as the remaining life is shorter. As a result, the maintenance price determination unit 7 decreases the maintenance price as the remaining life is longer, and increases the maintenance price as the remaining life is shorter" for generating a maintenance price to replace a component of an injection molding machine based on the estimated remaining life of the component. See [0076]-[0077], including “by displaying the remaining life of the plurality of inspection target portions in a list on the display screen 80B, the information presentation device 1 can assist the client requesting the maintenance to easily grasp the inspection target portion in which maintenance is performed”, for the case in which a component has reached/surpassed the end of its useful life and needs replacement)
executing processing related to securing a spare part for the component that needs to be replaced in a case where securing a spare part for the component is required (see [0069] “An operation button 90 for requesting maintenance is displayed on the display screen 80. When a client requesting maintenance selects the operation button 90 with a pointing device or the like, the CPU 21 of the management device 20 transmits a maintenance request to the maintenance server 40. At this time, the information of the injection molding machine may be transmitted” and [0076]-[0077], including “by displaying the remaining life of the plurality of inspection target portions in a list on the display screen 80B, the information presentation device 1 can assist the client requesting the maintenance to easily grasp the inspection target portion in which maintenance is performed”, for the execution of processing/requesting maintenance in a case in which a component has reached/surpassed the end of its useful life and needs replacement and maintenance is requested by the user)
offering the inference result to the user (see [0076] "In the display screen 80B, the component names 93 of the plurality of components to be the inspection target portions are displayed, respectively. Here, "ball screw", "motor", "power module", "relay", "battery", and the like are displayed. In addition, a bar 94 and a numerical value display column 95 indicating the remaining life of the inspection target portion are displayed in correspondence with the inspection target portion. The values of the bar 94 and the numerical value display field 95 are set to 0% when the inspection target portion is not used (immediately after maintenance), and 100% at the end of the life of the inspection target portion. That is, the longer the length of the bar 94, the smaller the remaining life of the inspection target portion as the value of the numerical value display field 95 becomes larger. The remaining life of the inspection target portion is calculated by the state monitoring and diagnosis portion 3")
and offering the estimate data in a case where a request for the estimate data from the user is present (see [0053] "the maintenance price determination unit 7 determines the weighting coefficient based on the maintenance plan. For example, the weighting coefficient may be smaller as the period between the date and time at which the maintenance of the inspection target portion is requested and the date and time when the maintenance of the inspection target portion is actually performed is longer, and the weighting coefficient may be set to be larger as the period becomes shorter" and [0054] "the maintenance price determination unit 7 determines the weighting coefficient according to the number and the number of items when the maintenance is requested. For example, in a case where a plurality of maintenance is requested at the same time, the weighting coefficient may be set to be smaller than that in a case where the request is individually requested. As a result, when the maintenance price determination unit 7 requests a plurality of maintenance at the same time, the maintenance price determination unit 7 lowers the maintenance price compared to a case where the maintenance price determination unit 7 individually requests the maintenance" for the weighting coefficient, which affects estimate pricing as discussed above, is determined based on maintenance requests from the client. Accordingly, the estimate provided in Figs. 3-5 is provided when a maintenance request from the user is present)
Regarding claim 10, Minemura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Minemura further teaches:
selecting relevant information according to a condition of the component from a storage unit storing a plurality of relevant information in correspondence with conditions of the component based on the acquired physical quantity data and an inference result concerning a remaining life or an abnormality degree of the component (see [0041] "The operation data storage unit 4, the maintenance history storage unit 5, and the maintenance information storage unit 6 are provided, for example, in the storage medium 22 of the management device 20" and [0042]-[0043] "The operation data storage unit 4 stores operation data of the inspection target unit transmitted from the control device 700 of the injection molding machines 11 to 12. The operation data of the inspection target portion may include, for example, information such as an operation time, the number of shots to be used, and a detection value of the load detector 161. The maintenance history storage unit 5 stores the maintenance history of the inspection target unit transmitted from the control device 700 of the injection molding machines 11 to 12. The maintenance history may include, for example, information such as the date and time when the maintenance for each inspection target portion is performed" for a storage unit storing relevant information regarding the condition of the molding machine components. See [0065] "a symbol 85 indicating the threshold of the number of shots is displayed on the price transition display unit 81. In the example of FIG. 3, the symbol 85 is displayed as a broken line extending in the vertical direction displayed at a position corresponding to the threshold of the number of shots. Here, the threshold of the number of shots is, for example, a threshold for determining that there is a risk of failure, and is the number of shots serving as a guide for maintenance" for related information of a threshold number of shots displayed along with a cumulative shot number for relevant information corresponding to the physical quantity data and inference result concerning remaining life)
and offering the selected relevant information to the user of the molding machine (see [0065] "a symbol 85 indicating the threshold of the number of shots is displayed on the price transition display unit 81. In the example of FIG. 3, the symbol 85 is displayed as a broken line extending in the vertical direction displayed at a position corresponding to the threshold of the number of shots. Here, the threshold of the number of shots is, for example, a threshold for determining that there is a risk of failure, and is the number of shots serving as a guide for maintenance" for related information of a threshold number of shots displayed along with a cumulative shot number for relevant information corresponding to the physical quantity data and inference result concerning remaining life being shown to the user of the molding machine)
Regarding claim 13, Minemura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As discussed in the claim objection section above, claim 13 is a substantial duplicate of claim 10. Accordingly, see the rejection of claim 10 above for Minemura teaching the limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Minemura teaches:
An information processing apparatus, comprising: (see [0037] “The information presentation device 1 is a device that calculates a maintenance price of an inspection target unit of the injection molding machines 11 to 12 and presents the calculated maintenance price to the presentation unit 8. The information presentation device 1 includes an information processing unit 2 and a presentation unit 8. The information processing unit 2 includes a state monitoring and diagnosis unit 3, an operation data storage unit 4, a maintenance history storage unit 5, a maintenance information storage unit 6, and a maintenance price determination unit 7”)
an acquisition unit that acquires physical quantity data related to a condition of a component constituting a molding machine (see [0044] "The state monitoring diagnosis unit 3 monitors and diagnoses the deterioration state of the inspection target unit. Here, the deterioration state of the inspection target portion includes, for example, fatigue, deterioration, wear, failure, abnormality, and the like. The state monitoring diagnosis unit 3 diagnoses the deterioration state of the inspection target unit based on at least one of the cumulative operation time of the inspection target unit, the cumulative shot number of the inspection target unit, and the cumulative load of the inspection target unit, for example" and [0040] "Here, the inspection target portion is, for example, a component to be inspected by the injection molding machines 11 to 12 or a component of the injection molding machines 11 to 12 to be subjected to maintenance. Examples of the inspection target portion include a ball screw of the motion conversion mechanism 170, a bush (wear component) of the toggle mechanism 150, a ball screw of the drive mechanism 220, a ball screw that drives the screw of the injection device 300 in the axial direction, a frame 900, and the like" for the acquisition unit as state monitoring diagnosis unit and [0041] for the units being realized in a CPU)
and a processing unit, the processing unit inferring a remaining life or an abnormality degree of the component based on the acquired physical quantity data (see [0039] and [0041] for the functionality of the information processing device 1 being executed by a CPU/processing unit and [0052] "the state monitoring diagnosis unit 3 diagnoses the remaining life (an example of the deterioration state) of the inspection target unit on the basis of at least one of the cumulative operation time of the inspection target unit, the cumulative shot number of the inspection target unit, and the cumulative load of the inspection target unit")
generating estimate data indicating a replacement cost for the component that needs to be replaced based on an inference result concerning a remaining life or an abnormality degree of the component (see [0050]-[0056], particularly [0051] "The maintenance price determination unit 7 determines a maintenance price on the basis of a component margin of the inspection target portion to be replaced during maintenance, a wage at the time of maintenance of the inspection target portion, and a weighting coefficient" and [0052] "The maintenance price determination unit 7 determines the weighting coefficient based on the remaining life of the inspection target unit. Here, the weighting coefficient based on the remaining life of the inspection target portion may be set such that the weighting coefficient becomes smaller as the remaining life is longer, and the weighting coefficient becomes larger as the remaining life is shorter. As a result, the maintenance price determination unit 7 decreases the maintenance price as the remaining life is longer, and increases the maintenance price as the remaining life is shorter" for generating a maintenance price to replace a component of an injection molding machine based on the estimated remaining life of the component)
and offering the generated estimate data to a user of the molding machine (see Figs. 3-5 and [0061]-[0075] for display screen showing the determined maintenance price to a user)
Regarding claim 17, Minemura teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a computer program causing a computer to execute processing of (see [0041] "the information presentation device 1 is provided in the management device 20 as illustrated in FIG. 1. The state monitoring diagnosis unit 3 and the maintenance price determination unit 7 are realized, for example, by the CPU 21 of the management device 20 executing a program. The operation data storage unit 4, the maintenance history storage unit 5, and the maintenance information storage unit 6 are provided, for example, in the storage medium 22 of the management device 20. Further, for example, the presentation unit 9 is realized by the CPU 21 of the management device 20 executing a program, and displays a screen for presenting the maintenance price of the inspection target unit on the display unit 25 of the management device 20" for the management device performing the recited functions by executing a program stored in a medium/memory. See [0035] for the storage medium being a memory)
Regarding the remaining limitations of claim 17, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura in view of Shiraishi (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0099026, hereafter known as Shiraishi).
Regarding claim 3, Minemura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. While Minemura teaches varying the replacement cost for a component based on the remaining life of the component as discussed above regarding claim 1, and while Minemura also considers abnormalities as part of the deterioration state of the molding machine components, Minemura does not explicitly teach varying a replacement cost for the component based on a number and frequency of abnormality occurrences for the component. Shiraishi teaches:
varying a replacement cost for the component depending on the number and frequency of abnormality occurrences for the component (see [0025] "The life index may be a time difference between the time and date of an Nth (N: set integer of 2 or more) detection of the resin pressure abnormality and the time and date of an (N-1)th detection of the resin pressure abnormality. According to this embodiment, the alarm is output when the time interval between the resin pressure abnormality detections is reduced. Thus, the molding conditions can be appropriately improved and each component can be replaced by suitably setting a reference detection interval" and [0102] "moreover, if an optimum abnormality detection value of the resin pressure and the life index are set for each component, the molding conditions can be more appropriately improved and each component can be replaced based on its life expectancy" for determining a remaining life of a component based on a number and frequency of abnormalities. Also see [0099]. In combination with Minemura, this life expectancy for the component drives the weighting coefficient which varies the replacement cost for the component)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the number and frequency of abnormality occurrences into the life expectancy of Shiraishi into the system of Minemura. As Shiraishi states in [0102] above, “if an optimum abnormality detection value of the resin pressure and the life index are set for each component, the molding conditions can be more appropriately improved and each component can be replaced based on its life expectancy”. By incorporating a measurement of number and frequency of abnormalities into the life expectancy measure for molding components, the combination of Minemura and Shiraishi can adjust molding conditions to better manage abnormalities and ensure that component parts can be replaced based on life expectancy and not be degraded early due to suboptimal operating conditions.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura in view of Smith (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2003/0172072, hereafter known as Smith).
Regarding claim 6, Minemura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. While Minemura teaches executing processing to secure a spare part for a component that needs to be replaced in the form of operation button 90 requesting maintenance for the component, Fig. 3 shows the processing occurring on the same screen that is displaying the estimated prices. Therefore, Minemura does not explicitly teach executing processing related to securing a spare part for the component that needs to be replaced before offering the estimate data to the user. Smith teaches:
executing processing related to securing a spare part for the component that needs to be replaced before offering the estimate data to the user (see [0033] "In step 306, a measured parameter can be compared to the predetermined replacement criterion to determine whether the part is measuring the end of its useful life. When the part 206 needs to be replaced, a replacement part can be automatically ordered as shown in decision block 308" and [0036] "the order can be received by the appliance controller 202 forwarded to the replacement part order system 100 via the appliance communications unit 208, as shown in step 320. The order can include a part identification code, such as part number, quantity and description of the part being ordered, billing account information, shipping information and any other information the order center requests. Referring to step 322, the appliance controller 202 can receive an order confirmation from the replacement part order system 100 and present the order confirmation to the user" for automatically placing the order for a spare part before alerting the user to the pricing of the item. Examiner notes that the embodiment teaching claim 6 is when the output of step 308 is YES in Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the execution of processing to secure a spare part before presenting an estimate to a user of Smith into the system of Minemura. As Smith states in [0007] “Hence, what is needed is a system for use in appliances that will give a warning to a consumer that a part in the appliance will soon need replacement. An added benefit can be provided by a system that facilitates the ordering process to minimize consumer inconvenience”. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that while the system of Minemura providing a remaining life of a component would satisfy a need for a consumer, the automatic order processing to secure the spare part would further minimize user inconvenience of having to manually order the part.
Claims 7-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura in view of Allen et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0068370, hereafter known as Allen).
Regarding claim 7, Minemura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. The maintenance information storage unit of Minemura [0049] is recited as storing “for example, information used to determine the busy period information of the maintenance provider, the component margin for each inspection target portion, the work cost, the work time, and the maintenance price of the work personnel or the like”. Minemura therefore possesses the estimated costs for components, labor time, and labor costs of replacing components, etc. While Minemura [0049] states that these figures are transmitted from the maintenance server, Minemura is silent regarding how this estimate data is originally generated. Minemura therefore does not explicitly teach the reading of specification information of the component to be replaced from a database storing a plurality of users and specification information of different components used by the plurality of users, and generating the estimate data based on the specification information. Allen teaches:
reading specification information of the component that needs to be replaced from a database storing a plurality of users and specification information of components constituting a plurality of the molding machines being different that are used by the plurality of users, in association with each other (see [0036] "the potential matching products, product information for the potential matching products, the selected product, the potential matching parts, the selected part is passed from controller 1242 to a user account database 1230, and stored for future use" and [0046] "The user 3 requests a part for this identified product. As with most information, it is stored in the customer's account in the customer account database 1230. The request is passed to parts database 1220 indicating the product identifier which may be a model number or serial number" for reading specification information of a part from a database of user accounts and the replacement components they purchased associated with the user. See [0028] for product information comprising specifications of the products. In combination with Minemura, the replacement parts being ordered would be for a molding machine)
and generating the estimate data based on the read specification information (see [0046] "The user 3 requests a part for this identified product. As with most information, it is stored in the customer's account in the customer account database 1230. The request is passed to parts database 1220 indicating the product identifier which may be a model number or serial number" and [0049] "the mobile device 1100 may connect with the e-commerce system 1300 to identify a location, and cost of the replacement part and possibly purchase the part" for generating the estimated cost for the replacement part based on the specification information read from the user account database)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the database of users and the component specifications used by each user to generate estimates from of Allen into the system of Minemura. As Allen states in [0037] “This will allow better matching of products and parts for that customer in the future and will make it easier for the customer to find parts for the products in the future”. Accordingly, by maintaining a database of components and specifications used by each user, the combined system would make it easier for repeat orders of the replacement components by having a user’s components and their specifications already identified and able to be used to find estimated product costs.
Regarding claim 8, Minemura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. The maintenance information storage unit of Minemura [0049] is recited as storing “for example, information used to determine the busy period information of the maintenance provider, the component margin for each inspection target portion, the work cost, the work time, and the maintenance price of the work personnel or the like”. Minemura therefore possesses the estimated costs for components, labor time, and labor costs of replacing components, etc. Minemura teaches in [0069] that the “information of the injection molding machine may be transmitted” to the maintenance server as part of the processing to secure a spare part, but Minemura is silent regarding what information about the molding machine is sent as part of the request and how that information of the molding machine is obtained. Minemura therefore does not explicitly teach the reading of specification information of the component to be replaced from a database storing a plurality of users and specification information of different components used by the plurality of users, and executing processing related to securing a spare part for the component based on the specification information. Allen teaches:
reading specification information of the component that needs to be replaced from a database storing a plurality of users and specification information of components constituting a plurality of the molding machines being different that are used by the plurality of users, in association with each other (see [0036] "the potential matching products, product information for the potential matching products, the selected product, the potential matching parts, the selected part is passed from controller 1242 to a user account database 1230, and stored for future use" and [0046] "The user 3 requests a part for this identified product. As with most information, it is stored in the customer's account in the customer account database 1230. The request is passed to parts database 1220 indicating the product identifier which may be a model number or serial number" for reading specification information of a part from a database of user accounts and the replacement components they purchase associated with the user. See [0028] for product information comprising specifications of the products. In combination with Minemura, the replacement parts being ordered would be for a molding machine)
and executing processing related to securing a spare part for the component that needs to be replaced based on the read specification information (see [0046] "The user 3 requests a part for this identified product. As with most information, it is stored in the customer's account in the customer account database 1230. The request is passed to parts database 1220 indicating the product identifier which may be a model number or serial number" and [0049] "the mobile device 1100 may connect with the e-commerce system 1300 to identify a location, and cost of the replacement part and possibly purchase the part" for executing processing to order the spare part identified based on the specification information from the user account database. See [0050] for executing processing to put the specified part on a list to purchase later for additional processing related to securing a spare part)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the database of users and the component specifications used by each user to perform operations to secure spare parts for the component of Allen into the system of Minemura. As Allen states in [0037] “This will allow better matching of products and parts for that customer in the future and will make it easier for the customer to find parts for the products in the future”. Accordingly, by maintaining a database of components and specifications used by each user, the combined system would make it easier for repeat orders of the replacement components by having a user’s components and their specifications already identified and able to be used to reach out and order the spare parts from suppliers. In other words, the information on the molding machine sent by Minemura as part of the maintenance request would be obtained from the database of part specifications previously used by the requesting user.
Regarding claim 11, Minemura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. However, Minemura further teaches:
accumulating data indicating an access history to a site offering the inference result, an access history to a site offering the estimate data, a purchase history of the component, a condition inference history, user-related information, a molding machine operation environment or a molding machine operation location (see [0043] “The maintenance history storage unit 5 stores the maintenance history of the inspection target unit transmitted from the control device 700 of the injection molding machines 11 to 12. The maintenance history may include, for example, information such as the date and time when the maintenance for each inspection target portion is performed” for the accumulation of at least user-related information. See [0042] for at least condition inference information being accumulated)
Minemura teaches the management device being located at a user of the injection molding machines, implying that one management device is used for one molding machine user location. Accordingly, Minemura does not explicitly teach clustering users based on the accumulated data. Allen teaches:
and clustering users based on the accumulated data (see [0046] “The user 3 requests a part for this identified product. As with most information, it is stored in the customer's account in the customer account database 1230” and [0036] “any of the following information including the image acquired, the potential matching products, product information for the potential matching products, the selected product, the potential matching parts, the selected part is passed from controller 1242 to a user account database 1230” for clustering users into a user account database, with the user accounts containing the accumulated replacement purchase history of the users)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of clustering customers into a user account database of Allen to the system of Minemura would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Allen to the teaching of Minemura would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such clustering customers into a user account database. Further, applying clustering customers into a user account database to Minemura would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for more efficient maintenance of molding equipment across sites. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by clustering accounts for multiple users into a database of a management device, the combined system could manage the replacement of injection molding components for multiple injection molding locations in an organization (i.e. each manufacturing plant location of a company would not need their own dedicated management device of Minemura) and/or manage injection molding component replacement for a multitude of customers from a single management device.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the clustering customers into a user account database as taught by Allen in the system of Minemura, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Particularly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to incorporate multiple user maintenance histories into the maintenance history storage unit of Minemura, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the addition of maintenance histories of multiple users into a single storage unit would have had predictable results and not interfered with the other operations of Minemura.
Regarding claim 12, Minemura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. The maintenance information storage unit of Minemura [0049] is recited as storing “for example, information used to determine the busy period information of the maintenance provider, the component margin for each inspection target portion, the work cost, the work time, and the maintenance price of the work personnel or the like”. Minemura therefore possesses the estimated costs for components, labor time, and labor costs of replacing components, etc. Minemura teaches in [0069] that the “information of the injection molding machine may be transmitted” to the maintenance server as part of the processing to secure a spare part, but Minemura is silent regarding what information about the molding machine is sent as part of the request and how that information of the molding machine is obtained. Minemura therefore does not explicitly teach the reading of specification information of the component to be replaced from a database storing a plurality of users and specification information of different components used by the plurality of users, and executing processing related to securing a spare part for the component based on the specification information. Allen teaches:
reading specification information of the component that needs to be replaced based on an inference result concerning a remaining life or an abnormality degree of the component from a database storing a plurality of users and specification information of components constituting a plurality of the molding machines being different that are used by the plurality of users, in association with each other (see [0044] "In step 2103, user 3 realizes that he needs a replacement part for product 5" and [0036] "the potential matching products, product information for the potential matching products, the selected product, the potential matching parts, the selected part is passed from controller 1242 to a user account database 1230, and stored for future use" and [0046] "The user 3 requests a part for this identified product. As with most information, it is stored in the customer's account in the customer account database 1230. The request is passed to parts database 1220 indicating the product identifier which may be a model number or serial number" for reading specification information of a part from a database of user accounts and the replacement components they purchase associated with the user. See [0028] for product information comprising specifications of the products. In combination with Minemura, the replacement parts being ordered would be for a molding machine that is inferred to need replacement based on the Minemura physical data regarding operation of the part)
and executing processing related to securing a spare part for the component that needs to be replaced based on the read specification information (see [0046] "The user 3 requests a part for this identified product. As with most information, it is stored in the customer's account in the customer account database 1230. The request is passed to parts database 1220 indicating the product identifier which may be a model number or serial number" and [0049] "the mobile device 1100 may connect with the e-commerce system 1300 to identify a location, and cost of the replacement part and possibly purchase the part" for executing processing to order the spare part identified based on the specification information from the user account database. See [0050] for executing processing to put the specified part on a list to purchase later for additional processing related to securing a spare part)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the database of users and the component specifications used by each user to perform operations to secure spare parts for the component of Allen into the system of Minemura. As Allen states in [0037] “This will allow better matching of products and parts for that customer in the future and will make it easier for the customer to find parts for the products in the future”. Accordingly, by maintaining a database of components and specifications used by each user, the combined system would make it easier for repeat orders of the replacement components by having a user’s components and their specifications already identified and able to be used to reach out and order the spare parts from suppliers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Campomanes et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0042907) teaches using a model to determine a remaining life of a component based on observed wear on the part
Kapil et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0321606) teaches forecasting a demand for spare parts and automatically purchasing spare parts
Mizumachi et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2002/0055893) teaches maintaining a user-selected spare parts database
Zhou et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0324495) teaches calculating a net present value of repairs including labor costs and rush delivery for replacement parts
Herrman et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0127480) teaches clustering users into groups based on part order history
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MORONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/M.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights