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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submissions filed on 07/24th/2025 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS pages 8 filed July 24th, 2025, regarding the objection to claims 1, 11, and 20 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore the objection to claims 1, 11, and 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS pages 8-14 filed July 24th, 2025, regarding the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been considered and are not persuasive.
Even though the applicant alleges that the amended claim recites improvements that include augmenting equipment/sensor functionality, such as, in response to detecting that equipment is in a running state, the recited operations include causing, by at least one processor, at least one sensor (e.g., a connected device) to capture raw sensor data. The at least one processor is configured to generate, using the raw sensor data, equipment data that includes a set of parameter values. The generated data is provided to a physics-based model configured to detect an anomaly. The detected anomaly is reconciled with the output of another model. The at least one processor then performs particularly recited operations to detect and report false positives. The false positives may include erroneous indications of failure of the running equipment and applying various checks ( e.g., threshold-based checks) to derivatives generated based on raw sensor data, where sensors ordinarily would not be able to perform such operations, and even though the disclosure [0011], [0022], and [0042-0043] recite further improvements that summarized in the REMARKS pages 11-12, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology. At best, the claimed combination amounts to an improvement to the abstract ideas of modifying bit state Information, comparing bit state information, applying curative action, updating bit state information, comparing predictions using bit state information, estimating a level of confidence for the consensus decision; and selectively disclosing the consensus decision qualifying a confidence threshold rather than to an improvement on the functioning of a computer or to any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Thus, even when considering the elements in combination, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Furthermore, the applicant is kindly asked to review the updated 101 rejection that includes the updated mental process analysis.
Prior Art Rejection
There is no prior art rejection for claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-20. When reading the claim in light of the specification, none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-20.
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, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter
Regarding Claim 1:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis:
Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 1 recites in part process steps which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are a series of mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process or a mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim recites in part:
wherein generating the second set of predictions includes modifying the bit state
information to apply a bit switch operation in response to detecting an
anomaly by applying the physical model to the parameter data (Mental processes -observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). A person with a pen and paper could modify the bit state information to apply a bit switch. Furthermore, the recitation of “using the physical model” amounts to mere instructions to implement the exception using generic computer components. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
generating, by the at least one processor and using machine learning techniques, a consensus decision by (1) in response to detecting a false positive by comparing bit state information to threshold data for the parameter data, applying curative action, (2) based on the curative action, updating the bit state information, and (3) comparing the first set of predictions and the second set of predictions using the bit state information or the updated bit state information (Mental processes -observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). A person with a pen and paper could compare bit state information, apply curative action, update bit state information, and compare predictions using bit state information. Furthermore, the recitation of “by the at least one processor and using machine learning techniques” amounts to mere instructions to implement the exception using generic computer components. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
estimating, by the at least one processor and using machine learning techniques, a level of confidence for the consensus decision (Mental processes -observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). A person with a pen and paper could estimate a level of confidence for a consensus decision. Furthermore, the recitation of “by the at least one processor and using machine learning techniques” amounts to mere instructions to implement the exception using generic computer components. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
selectively disclosing, by the at least one processor, the consensus decision qualifying a confidence threshold (Mental processes -observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). A person with a pen and paper could selectively disclose a consensus decision qualifying a confidence threshold. Furthermore, the recitation of “by the at least one processor” amounts to mere instructions to implement the exception using generic computer components. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea which is a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of:
A computer implemented method for predicting equipment failure by monitoring equipment data which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
in response to detecting that equipment is in a running state, causing, by at least one processor, at least one sensor to capture raw sensor data generated in connection with equipment operation generate which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data, i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
processing, by the at least one processor, the raw sensor data to generate, using the raw sensor data, equipment data comprising a set of parameter values which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
generating, by the at least one processor, a first set of predictions by processing the equipment data via a plurality of first models of data analysis and machine learning techniques which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
wherein the plurality of first models of data analysis includes a statistical model of data analysis which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
generating, by the at least one processor, a second set of predictions by processing the equipment data via a plurality of second models of data analysis and machine learning techniques which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
wherein the plurality of second models of data analysis includes a physical model of data analysis, the physical model comprising bit state information configured based on parameter data which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
A computer implemented method for predicting equipment failure by monitoring equipment data which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
in response to detecting that equipment is in a running state, causing, by at least one processor, at least one sensor to capture raw sensor data generated in connection with equipment operation generate which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data, i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
processing, by the at least one processor, the raw sensor data to generate, using the raw sensor data, equipment data comprising a set of parameter values which amounts to insignificant extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data outputting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Presenting offers", and “Determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
generating, by the at least one processor, a first set of predictions by processing the equipment data via a plurality of first models of data analysis and machine learning techniques which amounts to insignificant extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data outputting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Presenting offers", and “Determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
wherein the plurality of first models of data analysis includes a statistical model of data analysis which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
generating, by the at least one processor, a second set of predictions by processing the equipment data via a plurality of second models of data analysis and machine learning techniques which amounts to insignificant extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data outputting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Presenting offers", and “Determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
wherein the plurality of second models of data analysis includes a physical model of data analysis, the physical model comprising bit state information configured based on parameter data which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional limitations of the dependent claims contain no additional elements that provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are addressed briefly below
Dependent claim 2:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim does not include any mental process elements.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of:
wherein the plurality of first models of data analysis includes machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) models which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the plurality of first models of data analysis includes machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) models which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claim 3:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim does not include any mental process elements.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of:
wherein the statistical model of data analysis conducts, by the at least one processor, data analysis based at least on an event start time, an event end time, an event duration time, an event outcome, an event probability, or an occurrence of a connected event which amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h), limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the statistical model of data analysis conducts, by the at least one processor, data analysis based at least on an event start time, an event end time, an event duration time, an event outcome, an event probability, or an occurrence of a connected event which amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 5:
Step 2A Prong 1: wherein the consensus decision is generated, by the at least one processor, after comparing the first set of predictions and the second set of predictions. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the recitation of “by the at least one processor” amounts to mere instructions to implement the exception using generic computer components. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not include additional elements that would integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 6:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim does not include any mental process elements.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of:
wherein the first set of predictions is generated, by the at least one processor, using a first model of data analysis and the second set of predictions is generated, by the at least one processor, using the plurality of second models of data analysis which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the first set of predictions is generated, by the at least one processor, using a first model of data analysis and the second set of predictions is generated, by the at least one processor, using the plurality of second models of data analysis which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claim 7:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim does not include any mental process elements.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of:
wherein the first set of predictions is generated by the plurality of first models of data analysis and the second set of predictions is generated by a second model of data analysis which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the first set of predictions is generated by the plurality of first models of data analysis and the second set of predictions is generated by a second model of data analysis which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claim 8:
Step 2A Prong 1: selectively disclosing, by the at least one processor, to a receiving party the consensus decision qualifying a confidence threshold. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the recitation of “by the at least one processor” amounts to mere instructions to implement the exception using generic computer components. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not include additional elements that would integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 9:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim does not include any mental process elements.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of:
wherein selectively disclosing the consensus decision comprises not disclosing predictions of physical model data analysis results and statistical data analysis results which amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h), limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein selectively disclosing the consensus decision comprises not disclosing predictions of physical model data analysis results and statistical data analysis results which amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 11: is substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore is rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Claim 12: is substantially similar to claim 2 and therefore is rejected on similar grounds as claim 2.
Claim 13: is substantially similar to claim 3 and therefore is rejected on similar grounds as claim 3.
Claim 15: is substantially similar to claim 5 and therefore is rejected on similar grounds as claim 5.
Claim 16: is substantially similar to claim 6 and therefore is rejected on similar grounds as claim 6.
Claim 17: is substantially similar to claim 7 and therefore is rejected on similar grounds as claim 7.
Claim 18: is substantially similar to claim 8 and therefore is rejected on similar grounds as claim 8.
Claim 19: is substantially similar to claim 9 and therefore is rejected on similar grounds as claim 9.
Claim 20: is substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore is rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Burke - US 2021/0048993 Al
“Burke teaches a method for detecting malware using JAR file de-compilation ”
Givental - US 2021/0281592 Al
“Givental teaches a method to implement a hybrid machine learning (ML) anomaly detector comprising an ensemble of unsupervised ML models and a semi-supervised ML model”
Paz - Confidence through consensus: a neural mechanism for uncertainty monitoring- 2015
“Paz teaches a method that accounts for the well-established relations between confidence, and stimuli discriminability and reaction times, as well as the fluctuations influence on choice and confidence”
Molloy - US 2021/0287141 A1
“Molloy teaches a method to implement a hardened ensemble artificial intelligence ( AI ) model generator”
Roulston - Combining dynamical and statistical ensembles
“Roulston teaches a method for dressing ensembles of any size, thus enabling valid comparisons to be made between them”
Behera - Ensemble based Hybrid Machine Learning Approach for Sentiment Classification- A Review
“Behera teaches a method to enhance the efficiency of ensemble based machine learning techniques in the domain of sentiment classification”
Onan - A hybrid ensemble pruning approach based on consensus clustering and multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for sentiment classification
“Onan teaches a hybrid ensemble pruning scheme based on clustering and randomized search for text sentiment classification”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMCY ALGHAZZY whose telephone number is (571)272-8824. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, OMAR FERNANDEZ RIVAS can be reached on (571) 272-2589. 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.
/SHAMCY ALGHAZZY/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128