DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 06/22/2026 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claims 1 and 11 has been amended.
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 1,3-11, 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1,3-11, 13 and 15-20 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1,3-10 fall within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)); For example, each of claims 11, 13 and 15-20 fall within category of process.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of analyzing a cause of a failure.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. An apparatus for analyzing a cause of a failure due to a dielectric breakdown based on big data, comprising:
a sensor, attached to the vehicle, and configured to measure a dielectric resistance of the vehicle in real time;
a memory configured to store program instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the program instructions, the program instructions when executed are configured to:
collect, using the sensor, the dielectric resistance value of the vehicle;
compare the a dielectric resistance value of the vehicle is decreased to a minimum normal value(mental);
in response to determining that the dielectric resistance value decreases to the minimum normal value(mental):
determine a failure state period and a normal state period based on a second time point preceding a reference time from a first time point at which the dielectric resistance value is determined to be less than or equal to the minimum normal value(mental);
and collect a failure cause factor data set and a normal state data set including a plurality of failure cause factor data for the failure state period and the normal state period;
transmit the failure cause data set and the normal state data set to a big data server, and receive data corresponding to the failure cause data set and the normal state data set from the big data server;
determine influence indexes for failure cause factors using the received data corresponding to the failure cause data set and the normal state data set(mathematical);
accumulate a cumulative number corresponding to each failure cause factor based on the determined influence indexes over a plurality of failure occurrences(mathematical);
calculate a reliability value of each failure cause factor based on the cumulative number, wherein the reliability value increases as the cumulative number increases(mathematical);
generate analysis result information based on the failure cause factor having the largest influence index, or based on the failure cause factor having the influence index with a predetermined value or greater than the predetermined value, and further based on the calculated reliability value (mental); and
output the analysis result information by transmitting the analysis result information to a display or speaker; and
a transceiver configured to transmit the failure cause data set and the normal state data set to the big data server and to receive the data corresponding to the failure cause data set and the normal state data set from the big data server..
The italicized limitations above represent a combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitation “compare the a dielectric resistance value of the vehicle is decreased to a minimum normal value(mental); in response to determining that the dielectric resistance value decreases to the minimum normal value; determine a failure state period and a normal state period based on a second time point preceding a reference time from a first time point at which the dielectric resistance value is determined to be less than or equal to the minimum normal value” are a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper), see 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
For example, the limitation “determine influence indexes for failure cause factors using the received data corresponding to the failure cause data set and the normal state data set; accumulate a cumulative number corresponding to each failure cause factor based on the determined influence indexes over a plurality of failure occurrences; calculate a reliability value of each failure cause factor based on the cumulative number, wherein the reliability value increases as the cumulative number increases; generate analysis result information based on the failure cause factor having the largest influence index, or based on the failure cause factor having the influence index with a predetermined value or greater than the predetermined value, and further based on the calculated reliability value ” are mathematical relationships or rules or idea), see 2106.04(a)(2)(I)
Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010))
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The 1st additional element is “a sensor, attached to the vehicle, and configured to measure a dielectric resistance of the vehicle in real time; collect, using the sensor, the dielectric resistance value of the vehicle; collect a failure cause factor data set and a normal state data set including a plurality of failure cause factor data for the failure state period and the normal state period; transmit the failure cause data set and the normal state data set to a big data server, and receive data corresponding to the failure cause data set and the normal state data set from the big data server;”. This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., field of use and/or data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. see MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
The 2nd additional element is “An apparatus; a memory configured to store program instructions; and a processor configured to execute the program instructions, the program instructions when executed are configured to: ”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic computer component and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
The 3rd additional element is “output the analysis result information by transmitting the analysis result information to a display or speaker”. This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. see MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
The 4th additional element is “a transceiver configured to transmit the failure cause data set and the normal state data set to the big data server and to receive the data corresponding to the failure cause data set and the normal state data set from the big data server”. This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. see MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
In view of the above four the “additional elements” in cobination does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. See, MPEP §§2106.05(a).
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example,
the limitation of Claim 1 is an additional element that is, i.e. “processor , memory, a sensor attached to a vehicle ”, generic structure of vehicle monitoring system, which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser) and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
The limitation “transmit the failure cause data [..]; a transceiver” are generic devices, which are well understood, routine and conventional (see background of current discloser, IDS and the Examiner cited prior arts) and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 3-10
Dependent claims 3-10 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 3-10 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For examples,
Claim 3: determine whether the dielectric resistance value received after the failure state period is recovered to the minimum normal value or greater, generate a recovery time point data set include a plurality of failure cause factor data for the recovery state period by, in response to determining that the dielectric resistance value is recovered to the minimum value or greater, setting a period from a time point at which the dielectric resistance value reaches the minimum normal value to a preset time to a state recovery period(abstract idea: mental), and
transmit the generated recovery time point data set to the big data server, and receive the data corresponding to the data set from the big data server(extra solution activity: data gathering).
Claim 4: to select a failure cause factor by reflecting the calculated influence indexes and a cumulative number according to the influence indexes (abstract idea: mathematical concepts).
Claim 5. periodically receive a failure state data set and a recovery state data set(extra solution activity: data gathering), and
determine the influence indexes for the failure cause factors using data corresponding to the failure state data set and the recovery state data set, which have been received(abstract idea: mathematical concepts); and
determine the failure cause factor based on the influence indexes and reflect the selected failure cause factor on the analysis result information(abstract idea: mathematical concepts).
Claim 6. generate a failure cause factor analysis table according to the analysis result whenever the measured dielectric resistance value of the vehicle is the minimum normal value or less and in response to determining that a failure state is generated(abstract idea: mental).
Claim 7. the failure cause factor analysis table includes at least one of information for determining relative magnitudes of the influence indexes and influences, and failure cause factor doubt information(extra solution activity: data gathering).
Claim 8. when the influence indexes are a preset value or less, the program instructions when executed are further configured to determine that it is impossible to determine an influence and not to add a number to the cumulative number(abstract idea: mathematical concepts).
Claim 9. the analysis result information includes a reliability value, and the reliability value increases as the cumulative number increases and decreases as the cumulative number decreases(abstract idea: mental).
Claim 10. the big data server is configured to receive a data set, extract the data corresponding to the data set, and transmit the extracted data to the processor(extra solution activity: data gathering).
Regarding claims 11, 13 and 15-20
Claims 11, 13 and 15-20 contain language similar to claims 1 and 3-10 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 11, 13 and 15-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1,3-11, 13 and 15-20, specifically claims 1 and 11 contain a allowable subject matter however there is 101 rejection.
Closes prior art, Gracia et al. (US 2018/0276913)in views of Lavie et al. (US 2017/0169625) and Nishida (US 2020/0369174) fails to disclose or render obvious the limitations of “determine a failure state period and a normal state period based on a second time point preceding a reference time from a first time point at which the dielectric resistance value is determined to be less than or equal to the minimum normal value; determine influence indexes for failure cause factors using the received data corresponding to the failure cause data set and the normal state data set; accumulate a cumulative number corresponding to each failure cause factor based on the determined influence indexes over a plurality of failure occurrences; calculate a reliability value of each failure cause factor based on the cumulative number, wherein the reliability value increases as the cumulative number increases”.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, specially claim 1, the applicant did not agree with it., see pages 8-11.Applicant Argus that the amended limitation “accumulate a cumulative number corresponding to each failure cause factor based on the determined influence indexes over a plurality of failure occurrences; calculate a reliability value of each failure cause factor based on the cumulative number, wherein the reliability value increases as the cumulative number increases;" Independent claim 11 is similarly amended. These amendments clarify that the claimed subject matter is not merely directed to simple analysis result output, but rather implements a quantitative analysis structure based on iterative data accumulation and a reliability evaluation mechanism that evolves over a time axis.” The Applicant argus that “Amended claim 1 is analogous to Example 40 and recites patent-eligible subject matter”.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because current amended limitation also directed to abstract idea of mathematical concepts. In combination, the additional elements recite in current claim invention that would not integrate into a practical application, the sensor being attached to the vehicle to measure dielectric resistance is field of use and/or data gathering limitation. The only other additional elements appear to be generic computer components and transmitting the results of the analysis. These “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic devices associated with computer with software, where such generic data colleting device with computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., an environment of computer hardware/ software in communication with one another (a network of computing devices), and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Claim invention only recite the idea of a solution or outcome “outputting a analysis result” and do not include any details about how the “outputting a analysis result” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Yoon et al. (US 2015/0155702) disclose detected dielectric breakdown according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, the drive control method 200 based on the detected dielectric breakdown includes sensing for dielectric resistance of a vehicle (S201). When whether or not dielectric breakdown occurs is determined based on dielectric resistance (S203), if the dielectric breakdown occurs, whether the vehicle is in a ready state according to on/off of the switch 140 for connecting the high voltage battery 100 and other high voltage components (S205).
b) Kwon et al. (US 8,831,816) disclose detected dielectric breakdown according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, the drive control method 200 based on the detected dielectric breakdown includes sensing for dielectric resistance of a vehicle (S201). When whether or not dielectric breakdown occurs is determined based on dielectric resistance (S203), if the dielectric breakdown occurs, whether the vehicle is in a ready state according to on/off of the switch 140 for connecting the high voltage battery 100 and other high voltage components (S205).
c) Yuan et al. (US 2007/0093977) disclose A method and system for providing protection for a superconducting electrical cable located in a utility power network includes detecting a fault current on the superconducting electric cable, determining the cumulative total energy dissipated in the superconducting electrical cable from the fault current and at least one prior fault current over a predetermined time period, and determining whether to disconnect the superconducting electrical cable from the utility power network on the basis of the cumulative total energy dissipated.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights