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.
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, 8, 10, 15, and 17 have been considered and they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument #1
Step 2A-Prong 1: Claims are not directed to a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or
abstract idea
Examiner response #1
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examples 39, 40 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, while the claimed invention is directed to detecting abnormal devices. Therefore, these are different applications that are directed to different inventions and each application is examined on its own merit. Furthermore, even though the application is analyzed in light of the disclosure, only matter in the claims is analyzed. If the applicant wishes to argue that the claim is patentable in light of specifics from the disclosure then said specifics should be recited in the claim.
Applicant’s argument #2
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, and Step 2B: Claims recite additional element (s) that amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception (s).
Examiner response #2
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Applicant's published application discloses:
[0021-0023], [0060] and [0064]: In an embodiment, the at least one cardinality is indicative of the operating status comprises one of a success, a failure, or a transition state
[0064]: Further alerts can be generated based on cardinality assigned to the clusters wherein the alerts can be communication via any communication channel (e.g., Zig Bee® or https) as known in the art to an operator (e.g., a user, administrator) to acquire data from sensors for further processing and analysis.
[0060]: Another class is for some abnormal points ( e.g., unlabeled sensor observations) which indicates the possibility of failure to success or success to failure transitions. These values are marked to generate an alarm based on its previous class. For example, if these points/unlabeled sensor observations are obtained when the machine is in healthy state, then an alarm is set by the system 100. It is to be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art or person skilled in the art that there may be no requirement to raise an alarm if the device/machine/water pump is changing from failure transition state to success/good transition state.
[0064]: 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. KP/ can be further computed as per the domain knowledge provided by the expert. The already set parameters can be used to obtain the embedding using the LSTM encoder. UMAP can be used to reduce the feature into lesser dimension and then a clustering technique can be applied on the reduced dimension feature set to obtain one or more clusters. Further alerts can be generated based on cardinality assigned to the clusters wherein the alerts can be communication via any communication channel ( e.g., Zig Bee® or https) as known in the art to an operator ( e.g., a user, administrator) to acquire data from sensors for further processing and analysis.
[0060] and [0064]: Another class is for some abnormal points (e.g., unlabeled sensor observations) which indicates the possibility of failure to success or success to failure transitions. These values are marked to generate an alarm based on its previous class. For example, if these points/unlabeled sensor observations are obtained when the machine is in healthy state, then an alarm is set by the system 100. It is to be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art or person skilled in the art that there may be no requirement to raise an alarm if the device/machine/water pump is changing from failure transition state to success/good transition state.
[0044], [0052] and [0061]: The present disclosure has implemented an optimization technique on two parameters namely silhouette coefficients and the soft clustering probability decided upon the number of clusters to obtain a plurality of clusters based on the set of embeddings with reduced dimension. A Steel Plant pump is being discussed as a use case. In the method of the present disclosure, the silhouette coefficient ( SC) has been used to find the ratio of inter cluster and intra cluster. A curve is obtained when the number of clusters are plotted as x axis and the SC as y axis and the optimal point is used hereafter as 'S'. The curve plot is not shown in figures by the embodiments of the present disclosure. By determining the optimal number of clusters, number of states of the pump can be determined, such states for example, comprise but are not limited to: normal, starting to malfunction, malfunctioning, repaired, and the like.
[0060] and [0064]: the system conditionally changes its runtime behavior (alert generation, data acquisition escalation) only upon detecting a transition cluster and suppresses alerts for recovery transitions.
[0064]: saving computing resources in terms of the trained model is deployed on an edge device with limited compute.
[0021-0023], [0060-0061] and [0064]: technical advancement of detecting abnormal behavior of devices from associated unlabeled sensor observations.
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 nor does it amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
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 and 3 are directed to a process, claims 8 and 10 are directed to a machine, and claims 15 and 17 are directed to a manufacture. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15, and 17 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.
wherein the operating status of the device comprises one of a success, a failure, or a transition state, 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, wherein the first transition state and the second transition state are one of a success transition state or a failure transition 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.
Automatically generating at least one alert based on a previous class upon determining the device or the machine or the water pump is changing from the success transition state to a failure transition state. 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.
initiating, in response to the generated at least one alert, acquisition of additional sensor observations from the at least one sensor for further processing and analysis. 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 at least one alert is communicated via a communication channel to an operator to acquire the sensor observation from the at least one sensor. 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.
suppressing the generation of the at least one alert upon determining the device or the machine or the water pump is changing from the failure transition state to the success transition state. 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 processor implemented method is executed on the system deployed on an edge device configured to process the first unlabeled sensor observation and the second unlabeled sensor observation in real-time. 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 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.
wherein the operating status of the device comprises one of a success, a failure, or a transition state, 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, wherein the first transition state and the second transition state are one of a success transition state or a failure transition 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.
Automatically generating at least one alert based on a previous class upon determining the device or the machine or the water pump is changing from the success transition state to a failure transition state. 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.
initiating, in response to the generated at least one alert, acquisition of additional sensor observations from the at least one sensor for further processing and analysis. 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 at least one alert is communicated via a communication channel to an operator to acquire the sensor observation from the at least one sensor. 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.
suppressing the generation of the at least one alert upon determining the device or the machine or the water pump is changing from the failure transition state to the success transition state. 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 processor implemented method is executed on the system deployed on an edge device configured to process the first unlabeled sensor observation and the second unlabeled sensor observation in real-time. 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 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 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 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schneider (US20210397940A1)
“Schneider teaches a method for detecting abnormal behavior on clients using one or more neural networks on said clients”
Yan (US20170024649A1)
“Yan teaches a classification modeling platform to create classification models utilizing learned features, the classification models are executed to automatically identify a potential anomaly for an operating industrial asset”
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
Prosecution Insights