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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/09th/2025 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS pages 13-31 filed 10/9th/2025,
regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, and 17-19 have been considered and they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument #1
Regarding Step 2A- Prong 2: Claims recite a method for detecting abnormal behavior of devices from associated unlabeled sensor observations thereby integrate the exception into practical application based on combination of additional elements
Examiner response #1
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Applicant's published application at abstract and paragraphs [0036], [0038], [0064] and Table 1 discloses, "Conventionally, detecting time when a device is going to fail in real time has been a real challenge given the associated constraints and requirements. Due to absence in any supporting information or annotated data, traditional approaches have failed to detection abnormality in devices. Present disclosure provide systems and methods for detecting abnormal behavior of a device from associated unlabeled sensor observations wherein KP Is are computed based on unlabeled sensor observations of at least two sensor parameters and windowing technique is applied on modified dataset to obtain windowed dataset based on which hyper-parameters of deep learning-based auto-encoder are optimized to obtain set of embeddings. Dimensionality reduction technique is applied on the embeddings to obtain embeddings with reduced dimension. Density based clustering technique with hyper-parameters is applied on embeddings with reduced dimension and cluster(s) for unlabeled sensor observations are obtained Cardinality is assigned to cluster(s) to predict abnormal behavior of the device.
Once a model has been built it can be used in a device such as an edge device to respond in real time. For instance, once unlabeled sensor observations are obtained from the sensors attached with the device or machine parts, a similar window of 32 samples can be accumulated In an embodiment, a database 108 is comprised in the memory 102, wherein the database 108 comprises unlabeled sensor observations captured by one or more sensors attached to various equipment (or devices).
In an embodiment, at step 202 of the present disclosure, the one or more hardware
processors 104 obtain a dataset comprising a first unlabeled sensor observation and a second
unlabeled sensor observation from at least one sensor respectively, the at least one sensor is
attached to a device. Consider that a first unlabeled sensor observation is current (in amperes)
consumed by the device (e.g .. say water pump). and a second unlabeled sensor observation is
revolutions per minute (RPM) noted/captured for that water pump. The current consumed by
the device and revolutions per minute (RPM) serve as time series data/sensor data captured by
one or more corresponding sensors. Say, the dataset is in an input file (e.g., such as word processing document), wherein the unlabeled sensor observations (e.g.. the first unlabeled sensor observation and the second unlabeled sensor observation) are represented in one or more rows for various time instance. In other words. each row in the input file represents sensor observations at a specific instance of time (e.g., say for each second or every 1 second). Below Table 1 is an exemplary dataset comprising the first unlabeled sensor observation (current in amperes) and the second unlabeled sensor observation (frequency in Hertz (Hz)) from one or more sensors attached to one or more devices (e.g., 4 water pumps, namely Pump A, Pump B, Pump C (for sake of brevity not shown but to be assumed). and Pump D):", (among other recited improvements in the specifications), 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 idea of:
Computing … one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) … for a plurality of time instances of the first unlabeled sensor observation and the second unlabeled sensor observation.
Applying … a windowing technique on the modified dataset … to obtain a windowed dataset.
wherein out of the entire dataset, a set of rows are considered and transposed to create a new row with a plurality columns …
Optimizing … one or more hyper-parameters … to obtain one or more optimum encoder hyper-parameters.
Applying … a dimensionality reduction technique … to obtain a set of embeddings with reduced dimension.
The dimensionality reduction technique … is used to obtain the set of embeddings with the reduced dimension by reducing a feature vector to a lower 2 or 3-dimensional vector.
Applying … a clustering technique … to obtain a plurality of clusters ….
… a number of states of the water pump are determined including a normal, starting to malfunction, malfunctioning and repaired.
for abnormal unlabeled sensor observations … values are marked to generate the at least one alert based on a previous class
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, examples 39, 40 and 42 and the claimed invention are directed to different technologies and the same analysis does not apply to all of them. For example, example 39 is directed to a Method for Training a Neural Network for Facial Detection, example 40 is directed to Adaptive Monitoring of Network Traffic Data, example 42 is directed to Transmission of Notifications When Medical Records Are Updated, while the claimed invention is directed to detecting abnormal devices.
Applicant’s argument #2
Regarding Step 2B: Claims recite additional element ( s) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Examiner response #2
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements of each claim, as detailed in the 101 rejection below, do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Examiner notes that Applicant’s extensive REMARKS recite the contents of the claims and references them in the disclosure without presenting valid arguments.
Furthermore, Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corporation and the claimed invention are directed to different technologies and the same analysis does not apply to all of them. For example, Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corporation is directed to improving information retrieval and storage, while the claimed invention is directed to detecting abnormal devices.
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS pages 31-46 filed 10/9th/2025,
regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, and 17-19 have been considered and they are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, and 17-19 has been withdrawn.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 for all claims:
Claims 1-7 are directed to a process, claims 8-15 are directed to a machine, and claims 15-20 are directed to a manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 2A, prong 1
The claim recites an abstract idea consisting of the following elements:
Computing, via the one or more hardware processors, one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) based on a function of the first unlabeled sensor observation and the second unlabeled sensor observation comprised in the dataset to obtain a modified dataset, wherein the one or more key performance indicators are computed for a plurality of time instances of the first unlabeled sensor observation and the second unlabeled sensor observation. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As drafted, this encompasses a person using a function of the datasets to determine KPIs for more than one time instance of the data with their mind or with the aid of a pen and paper. Furthermore, the recitation of via the one or more hardware processors is mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Applying via the one or more hardware processors a windowing technique on the modified dataset based on a transpose function implemented on the plurality of time instances of the first unlabeled sensor observation and the second unlabeled sensor observation comprised in the modified dataset to obtain a windowed dataset. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As drafted, this encompasses a person transposing the time-series data to obtain a plurality of windows with their mind or with the aid of a pen and paper. Furthermore, the recitation of via the one or more hardware processors is mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
wherein out of the entire dataset, a set of rows are considered and transposed to create a new row with a plurality columns, wherein the created new row represents a window, wherein a number of the plurality of columns and a size of the window are equal to a number of the transposed set of rows, wherein the windowing technique is repeated for remaining rows, apart from the set of rows in the dataset Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As drafted, this encompasses a person transposing the time-series data to obtain a new row with a plurality of columns with their mind or with the aid of a pen and paper.
Optimizing via the one or more hardware processors, using the windowed dataset, one or more hyper-parameters of a deep learning-based auto-encoder to obtain one or more optimum encoder hyper-parameters, wherein the one or more optimum encoder hyper-parameters serve as one or more corresponding embeddings Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As drafted, this encompasses a person modifying a hyper-parameter with their mind or with the aid of a pen and paper. Furthermore, the recitation of via the one or more hardware processors is mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Furthermore, a hyper-parameter serving as an embedding is merely linking the exception to a field of use.
Applying via the one or more hardware processors a dimensionality reduction technique on the one or more corresponding embeddings to obtain a set of embeddings with reduced dimension. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As drafted, this encompasses a person determining lowered-dimensionality versions of the embeddings with their mind or with the aid of a pen and paper. Furthermore, the recitation of via the one or more hardware processors is mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
wherein the dimensionality reduction technique including a Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP) technique is used to obtain the set of embeddings with the reduced dimension by reducing a feature vector to a lower 2 or 3-dimensional vector. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As drafted, this encompasses a person assigning numbers to different items based on how similar or different they are with their mind or with the aid of a pen and paper.
Applying via the one or more hardware processors the clustering technique on the set of embeddings to obtain a plurality of clusters, wherein one or more clusters from the plurality of clusters is assigned at least one cardinality, the at least one cardinality is indicative of an operating status of the device over a time under consideration. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As drafted, this encompasses a person clustering the data and assigning at least one label to the clusters corresponding to an operating status of a device with their mind or with the aid of a pen and paper. Furthermore, the recitation of via the one or more hardware processors is mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
wherein upon obtaining the plurality of clusters, a number of states of the water pump are determined including a normal, starting to malfunction, malfunctioning and repaired. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As drafted, this encompasses a person assigning a state to a water pump based upon its operation status.
wherein for abnormal unlabeled sensor observations which indicate a possibility of a failure to a success or a success to a failure transitions, values are marked to generate the at least one alert based on a previous class. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As drafted, this encompasses a person marking equipment operational transitions between success and failure according to a list of possible markings.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim
includes the additional elements:
A processor implemented method for detecting abnormal behavior of devices from associated unlabeled sensor observations This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
obtaining, via one or more hardware processors, a dataset comprising a first unlabeled sensor observation and a second unlabeled sensor observation from at least one sensor respectively, the at least one sensor is connected to a device. This amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
wherein the first unlabeled sensor observation and the second unlabeled sensor observation are represented in one or more rows for a plurality of time instances and each row in the dataset represents sensor observations at a specific instance of time This is a field of use limitation 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.
wherein the at least one sensor captures the unlabeled sensor observations pertaining to the device in real-time, wherein the device is at least one of a water pump, a steel plant pump or any machine, wherein the first unlabeled sensor observation is current consumed by the device and the second unlabeled sensor observation is revolutions per minute (RPM), and wherein the current consumed by the device and the RPM serve as a time series data. This is a field of use limitation 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.
wherein the one or more KPis are represented in the form of a time series data, wherein the one or more KPis are computed with a feedback provided by a domain expert, and wherein the one or more KPis are computed as a ratio of the current per RPM. This is a field of use limitation 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.
… via the one or more hardware processors. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
wherein a long short-term memory (LSTM) encoder decoder is used to obtain the one or more optimum encoder hyper parameters for which a reconstruction error is minimized, wherein the step of optimizing the one or more hyper-parameters of the deep learning-based auto encoder comprises iteratively fine-tuning the one or more hyper-parameters based on the windowed dataset such that the reconstruction error reaches a pre-defined threshold, and wherein the one or more corresponding embeddings represent a 60-dimensional vector into an another new dimensional vector space. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
in prior to applying a cluster technique to visualize separation between clusters and enabling a system to optimize computational power thereby improving the system performance, wherein the UMAP technique enables to plot a data in a 2 dimension or a 3 dimension so that the data is visualized. This is a field of use limitation 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.
Wherein implementing an optimization technique on parameters including silhouette coefficients and soft clustering probability decided upon a number of clusters to obtain the plurality of clusters based on the set of embeddings with reduced dimension. This is a field of use limitation 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.
wherein performing the clustering technique to obtain the plurality of clusters based on the set of embeddings with reduced dimension requires less computing power. This is a field of use limitation 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.
wherein the one or more hyperparameters for obtaining the plurality of clusters includes min cluster size: m1n1mum size of clusters, min samples: number of samples/unlabeled sensor observations in a neighborhood for a specific unlabeled sensor observation considered as a core point, a metric to use when calculating distance between instances in a feature array and when metric is precomputed, Euclidean and Manhattan are assumed as a distance matrix and the distance matrix is square, an algorithm, gen min span tree: generate a minimum spanning tree with regard to mutual reachability distance for later analysis, scoring param names: defaults to silhouette score, calinski harabasz score and a name of scoring parameters is used to measure a quality of the clusters being outputted, and scoring param for best cluster selection: defaults to the silhouette score and a name of a scoring parameter is used for a best clustering selection during the hyper-parameter tuning and one of members of the 'scoring param names' property. This is a field of use limitation 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.
generating at least one alert based on the at least one cardinality assigned to the one or more clusters of the plurality of clusters, wherein the at least one alert is communicated via a communication channel to an operator to acquire data from the at least one sensor for further processing and analysis. This amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
wherein when the abnormal unlabeled sensor observations are obtained when the device is in a healthy state. This is a field of use limitation 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.
an alarm or the at least one alert is set by the system. This amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to 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
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
A processor implemented method for detecting abnormal behavior of devices from associated unlabeled sensor observations This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
obtaining, via one or more hardware processors, a dataset comprising a first unlabeled sensor observation and a second unlabeled sensor observation from at least one sensor respectively, the at least one sensor is attached to a device. This amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). 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").
wherein the first unlabeled sensor observation and the second unlabeled sensor observation are represented in one or more rows for a plurality of time instances and each row in the dataset represents sensor observations at a specific instance of time This is a field of use limitation 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.
wherein the at least one sensor captures the unlabeled sensor observations pertaining to the device in real-time, wherein the device is at least one of a water pump, a steel plant pump or any machine, wherein the first unlabeled sensor observation is current consumed by the device and the second unlabeled sensor observation is revolutions per minute (RPM), and wherein the current consumed by the device and the RPM serve as a time series data. This is a field of use limitation 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.
wherein the one or more KPis are represented in the form of a time series data, wherein the one or more KPis are computed with a feedback provided by a domain expert, and wherein the one or more KPis are computed as a ratio of the current per RPM. This is a field of use limitation 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.
… via the one or more hardware processors. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
wherein a long short-term memory (LSTM) encoder decoder is used to obtain the one or more optimum encoder hyper parameters for which a reconstruction error is minimized, wherein the step of optimizing the one or more hyper-parameters of the deep learning-based auto encoder comprises iteratively fine-tuning the one or more hyper-parameters based on the windowed dataset such that the reconstruction error reaches a pre-defined threshold, and wherein the one or more corresponding embeddings represent a 60-dimensional vector into an another new dimensional vector space. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
in prior to applying a cluster technique to visualize separation between clusters and enabling a system to optimize computational power thereby improving the system performance, wherein the UMAP technique enables to plot a data in a 2 dimension or a 3 dimension so that the data is visualized. This is a field of use limitation 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.
Wherein implementing an optimization technique on parameters including silhouette coefficients and soft clustering probability decided upon a number of clusters to obtain the plurality of clusters based on the set of embeddings with reduced dimension. This is a field of use limitation 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.
wherein performing the clustering technique to obtain the plurality of clusters based on the set of embeddings with reduced dimension requires less computing power. This is a field of use limitation 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.
wherein the one or more hyperparameters for obtaining the plurality of clusters includes min cluster size: m1n1mum size of clusters, min samples: number of samples/unlabeled sensor observations in a neighborhood for a specific unlabeled sensor observation considered as a core point, a metric to use when calculating distance between instances in a feature array and when metric is precomputed, Euclidean and Manhattan are assumed as a distance matrix and the distance matrix is square, an algorithm, gen min span tree: generate a minimum spanning tree with regard to mutual reachability distance for later analysis, scoring param names: defaults to silhouette score, calinski harabasz score and a name of scoring parameters is used to measure a quality of the clusters being outputted, and scoring param for best cluster selection: defaults to the silhouette score and a name of a scoring parameter is used for a best clustering selection during the hyper-parameter tuning and one of members of the 'scoring param names' property. This is a field of use limitation 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.
generating at least one alert based on the at least one cardinality assigned to the one or more clusters of the plurality of clusters, wherein the at least one alert is communicated via a communication channel to an operator to acquire data from the at least one sensor for further processing and analysis. This amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
wherein when the abnormal unlabeled sensor observations are obtained when the device is in a healthy state. This is a field of use limitation 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.
an alarm or the at least one alert is set by the system. This amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 3:
Step 2A, prong 1
The claim recites an abstract idea consisting of the following elements:
wherein the clustering technique is a density-based clustering technique. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As drafted, this encompasses a person clustering the data based on the density of the data with their mind or with the aid of a pen and paper.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim includes the additional elements:
wherein the clustering technique includes an automatic hyper parameter training to find a best hyper parameter combination for clustering. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
wherein the one or more hyper-parameters are applied on an input of a 60 column vector to output a 32-dimensional vector. This is a field of use limitation 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.
Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the clustering technique includes an automatic hyper parameter training to find a best hyper parameter combination for clustering. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
wherein the one or more hyper-parameters are applied on an input of a 60 column vector to output a 32-dimensional vector. This is a field of use limitation 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.
Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 4:
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim
includes the additional elements:
wherein the at least one cardinality indicative of the operating status comprises one of a success, a failure, or a transition state. This is a field of use limitation 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.
Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the at least one cardinality indicative of the operating status comprises one of a success, a failure, or a transition state. This is a field of use limitation 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.
Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 5:
Step 2A, prong 1
The claim recites an abstract idea consisting of the following elements:
wherein the transition state comprises a probability of a change in a first transition state to a second transition state that is different from the first transition state. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As drafted, this encompasses a person determining a probability of a change from one state to another with their mind or with the aid of a pen and paper.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not recite any additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 6:
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim
includes the additional elements:
wherein the first transition state and the second transition state are one of a success state or a failure state at one or more time instances of the plurality of time instances. This is a field of use limitation 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.
Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the first transition state and the second transition state are one of a success state or a failure state at one or more time instances of the plurality of time instances. This is a field of use limitation 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.
Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 8:
The claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is therefore rejected on the same basis, with the exception of the following additional elements:
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim
includes the additional elements:
A system, comprising: a memory storing instructions; one or more communication interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
A system, comprising: a memory storing instructions; one or more communication interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 10:
The claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 3 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 11:
The claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 4 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 12:
The claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 5 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 13:
The claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 6 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 15:
The claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is therefore rejected on the same basis, with the exception of the following additional elements:
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim
includes the additional elements:
A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having a computer readable program embodied therein, wherein the computer readable program, when executed on a computing device causes the computing device to detect abnormal behavior of devices from associated unlabeled sensor observations by. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having a computer readable program embodied therein, wherein the computer readable program, when executed on a computing device causes the computing device to detect abnormal behavior of devices from associated unlabeled sensor observations by. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As explained by the Supreme Court; in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 17:
The claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 3 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 18:
The claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 4 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 19:
Step 2A, prong 1
The claim recites an abstract idea consisting of the following elements:
wherein the transition state comprises a probability of a change in a first transition state to a second transition state that is different from the first transition state. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As drafted, this encompasses a person determining a probability of a change from one state to another with their mind or with the aid of a pen and paper.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim
includes the additional elements:
wherein the first transition state and the second transition state are one of a success state or a failure state at one or more time instances of the plurality of time instances. This is a field of use limitation 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.
Step 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the first transition state and the second transition state are one of a success state or a failure state at one or more time instances of the plurality of time instances. This is a field of use limitation 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.
Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hetherington (US 2020/0097810 Al)
“Hetherington teaches a method for automatically generating statistical features describing trends in time-series data that may then become inputs to machine learning models”
ELESSAWY (A Long Short-term Memory Autoencoder Approach
for EEG Motor Imagery Classification)
“ELESSAWY teaches a deep neural network approach for motor imagery classification using Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) combined with Autoencoders based on a sequence-to-sequence architecture”
Bhatt (US 2019/0220967 Al)
“Bhatt teaches a method for enabling automated inferencing of changes in spatio temporal images by leveraging the high level robust features extracted from a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) trained on varied contexts instead of data dependent feature methods”
Miranda (US 2018/0357299 Al)
“Miranda teaches an identification and management system for log entries that filters historical data and generate closed log entries as a reference dataset”
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