DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 2/11/26. Claims 1-3, 6-16, 18-20, 22 and 24 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/11/26 has been entered.
Claim Objections/Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 18 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 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-16, 18-20, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 18 recite: “detecting a failure state of the sensor, including determining a separate curve of said characteristic values for each day.” Claims 1 and 18 further recite “wherein the historical data includes data that are at least one of collected, detected and measured prior to the detecting the failure state of the sensor.” However, the original disclosure does not describe a process or any parameters for detecting a failure state of a sensor.
Similarly, claim 6 recites: “wherein the detecting of the failure state comprises at least one of: detecting a manufacturing fault status for the sensor indicative of a fault in a process for manufacturing the sensor; detecting a malfunction status for the sensor indicative of a malfunction of the sensor; and detecting an anomaly status for the sensor indicative of an anomaly in operation of the sensor.” However, the original disclosure (and the text of the claims) defines these 3 options as fault states of the sensor, not failure states.
Claims 2-3, 6-16, 18-20, 22 and 24 inherit the deficiencies of their respective independent claims, and are therefore also rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-16, 18-20, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 18 recite: “detecting a failure state of the sensor, including determining a separate curve of said characteristic values of for each day;”
Regarding the limitation "said characteristic values" in claims 1 and 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, claims 1 and 18 recite “detecting a failure state of the sensor” in (claim 1, (step C)). However, step (d) recites “determining a sensor to be faulty at step (c).”
It is unclear whether applicant intends to claim a method for detecting sensor FAILURE (i.e. sensor no longer functioning in any capacity) or whether the method defines determining the whether a sensor is FAULTY (i.e. the sensor is still functioning, but not in an intended manner.).
Similarly, claim 6 recites: “wherein the detecting of the failure state comprises at least one of: detecting a manufacturing fault status for the sensor indicative of a fault in a process for manufacturing the sensor; detecting a malfunction status for the sensor indicative of a malfunction of the sensor; and detecting an anomaly status for the sensor indicative of an anomaly in operation of the sensor.” However, the original disclosure (and the text of the claims) defines these 3 options as fault states of the sensor, not failure states.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/26 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant’s amendments are noted but there are remaining issues under 35 USC 112(b) which have not been fully addressed by applicant’s amendments.
The examiner has attempted to further explain the outstanding issues in the current rejections.
Please note the current claims seem to use “detecting failure state” and determining “faulty state” of the sensors interchangeable. The Examiner notes that the original disclosure does not provide parameters on the determination of a failure state for the sensors. (See rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and (b)). The disclosure discusses determining the operation status of the sensor(s), not specifically failure state.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
OKANOHARA et al (US 20180365089 A1) discloses an abnormality detection system includes a storage unit for storing a latent variable model and a joint probability model, an acquisition unit for acquiring sensor data that is output by a sensor, a measurement unit for measuring the probability of the sensor data acquired by the acquisition unit based on the latent variable model and the joint probability model stored by the storage unit, a determination unit for determining whether the sensor data is normal or abnormal based on the probability of the sensor data measured by the measurement unit, and a learning unit for learning the latent variable model and the joint probability model based on the sensor data output by the sensor.
Gortsas (US 20180267731 A1) discloses a system for detecting of a fault of the sensor and permanently storing the first data of the sensor continuously stored before the detection of the fault.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachel L Porter whose telephone number is (571)272-6775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10-6:30.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached on 571-270-1360. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Rachel L. Porter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights