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 10/14/25. Claims 1-3,6-16, 18-20, 22 and 24 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 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.
A) Also regarding claims 1 and 18, the language recites: “the compressed monitoring data and the compressed training data are determined by at least one of a linear regression method and a smoothing method and are the result of reduction of the dimension of monitoring data and training data, respectively, wherein a separate curve of said characteristic values for each day is determined, wherein a parameter is determined as being faulty if the curve reflects a current of the sensor and if the curve includes a current above a threshold value.”
As drafted, it is not clear whether the step of “generating compressed monitoring data and training data by applying a logistic regression method or a smoothing method” is actively performed as a function of the claimed method and system, or whether the step lies beyond the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Similarly, it is unclear whether the step of “determining a separate curve of said characteristic values for each day” is actively performed as a function of the claimed method and system.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the claim language to mean that the implied steps are actively performed within the claimed method and as a function of claimed system. However, clarification the claim language to actively recite the implied steps is requested. It should be noted that functions/steps which lie beyond the scope of the claimed method/system do not distinguish the claims from the prior art, and do not receive patentable weight.
B) Also regarding claims 1 and 18, it is unclear whether the limitation “wherein a sensor is determined to be faulty if the curve of the characteristic values reflects a current of the sensor including a current above a threshold value…” is an additional step/determination made in the claimed method/system, that occurs when the continuous monitoring data is being analyzed (in step (c), before the failure state is detected.)
More specifically, while the wherein clause further defines determining whether the sensor is merely FAULTY (i.e. still functioning, but not in an intended manner), the language of claim 1, (step C) specifically and expressly recites detecting a FAILURE STATE of the sensor (no longer functioning in any capacity). Therefore, it is unclear how the language of the wherein clause, further defining a “faulty state” is intended to further modify the method of claim 1, step C which recites only a FAILURE STATE.
C) Also regarding claims 2, and 19, it is unclear if the recited “ a haptic, audible or visual signal” is a redundant limitation, repeating information which has now been incorporated into claims 1 and 18, or whether applicant intends to claim that multiple “haptic, audible or visual signals” are generated.
Claims 2-3,6-16, 18-20, 22 and 24 inherit the deficiencies of their respective independent claims, and are therefore also rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/25 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. (i.e. clarifying what steps are actively performed in the claimed method; clarifying whether the method detects sensor faults or sensor failure).
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 a 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.
Petousis et al (US 20180261020 A1)-discloses data compression/dimension reduction of sensor data. (par. 36)
Hayter (US 20150374299 A1)-discloses a transmitter unit which may be configured to detect sensor insertion, sensor signal settling after sensor insertion, and sensor removal, in addition to detecting for sensor transmitter system failure modes and sensor signal data integrity. (par. 64)
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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