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 .
This Final Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 7/28/2025.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
In claim 8, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for “the weight”.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected due to containing informalities:
Claim 1 recites “determining, by the processor, -one or more” where “determining, by the processor, one or more” is intended.
Claims 2, 3, 4, and 5 recite “claim 1wherein” where “claim 1 wherein” is intended.
Claims 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 recite “13wherein” where “13 wherein” is intended.
Claims 20, 21, and 22 recite “19that” where “19 that” is intended.
Claims 23 and 24 recite “13that” where “13 that” is intended.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 20 recite “model weights” which is not supported by the original disclosure.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-7 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation of claim 6 is found in claim 1.
Claim 7 depends on claim 6 and, therefore, inherits the deficiency of claim 6. In addition, the limitation of claim 7 is also found in claim 1.
As such, claims 6-7 fail to further limit the subject matter claim 1.
On the same analysis, claims 18-19 fail to further limit the subject matter of independent claim 13.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1 further recites:
-selecting …a selected reference component for each component out of one or more components of the industrial system wherein the industrial system comprises more than 100 components; the selecting provides one more selected reference components; wherein each selected reference component is selected out of multiple reference components; wherein for each component the selecting is based on similarities between the component and reference components of the multiple reference components wherein the similarities are determined based on types, value ranges, and patterns of values of multiple parameters measured for the component and the reference components, wherein the multiple parameters include temperature, torque, pressure, rotational speed, and velocity (The claim does not put any limit on how the act of selection is performed or how the similarities between the components are recognized. As such, this selection, as drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites an abstract idea of mental process, since the selection can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid, like a pen and paper. Please note that the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection IlI.B).
-determining…one or more learnt mappings between (i) sensed information related to the one or more components and (ii) predicted failures of the one or more components ; wherein the learning is based, at least in part, on one or more reference mappings between (i) sensed information related to the one or more selected reference components and (ii) predicted failures of the one or more selected reference components (the determination can be practically performed in human mind, with or without the physical aid of a pen and paper)
-evaluating….the operation of the one or more components based on the monitoring results and the one or more reference mapping (the evaluation can be performed in human mind, with or without the physical aid of a pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 1 further recites additional elements, which, alone and in combination, fail to integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application since:
-pre-training, fine tuning, and replacing are recited at high level of generality, only amount to “apply it” using generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), the claim does not cite any specific process or algorithm.
-monitoring the one or more components to receive monitoring results is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
-processor and integrated circuits are recited at a high level of generality and amount to
no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components (MPEP
2106.05(f)).
Step 2B:
As discussed above, pre-training, fine tuning, and replacing recited at high level of generality, only amounts to “apply it” using generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Likewise, processor and integrated circuits only amount to applying abstract idea using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Monitoring the one or more components is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting or receiving data over a network (by MPEP 2106.05(d)).
These additional elements, alone and in combination, fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, claim 1 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 2, which depends on Claim 1, recites that the determining of the one or more
learnt mappings is executed without machine learning. This limitation merely further restricts
mental process without adding any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a
particular application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 3, which depends on Claim 1, recites a mental process grouping of abstract ideas,
the determining of the one or more learnt mappings, and an additional element of,
performing machine learning, which by MPEP 2106.05(f) is a tool to perform the abstract
idea. This additional element does not integrate abstract idea into a particular application,
rendering it subject matter ineligible.
Claim 4, which depends on Claim 1, recites a mental process grouping of abstract ideas,
the determining of the one or more learnt mappings comprises building one or more model.
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As such, the claim is
directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claim 5, which depends on Claim 1, recites a mental process grouping of abstract ideas,
the determining of the one or more learnt mappings, and an additional element of, pre-
training a machine learning process using the sensed information related to the selected
reference component, which by MPEP 2106.05(f) is a mere tool to apply the abstract idea, and
does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more
than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 6-7 include limitations cited in claim 1 therefore similar analysis is applied.
Claim 8, which depends on Claim 7, recites a mathematical process grouping of abstract ideas, to train the one or more model while allowing changes in model weights, wherein the weights of the last layer of the one or more model are allowed to change; and preventing changes in the weights of other layers of the one or more model. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provides
significantly more than the abstract idea itself, rendering it subject matter ineligible.
Claim 9, which depends on Claim 7, recites a mathematical process grouping of abstract
ideas, following the replacing, to train the one or more model at a learning rate that is
lower than a learning rate that was used before the replacement. It does not integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application or provides significantly more than the abstract idea
itself, rendering it subject matter ineligible.
Claim 10, which depends on Claim 7, recites a mathematical process grouping of abstract
ideas, adding one or more layers to the one or more model, following the replacing, and
continuing to train the one or more model. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application or provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 11, which depends on Claim 1, recites a mental process grouping of abstract ideas,
obtaining a selection parameter for selecting the selected reference component. This
limitation merely further restricts mental process without adding any additional elements that
integrate the abstract idea into a particular application or provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 12, which depends on Claim 1, recites a mental process grouping of abstract ideas,
selecting the one or more components based, at least in part, on an amount of failure
information about the one or more components. This limitation merely further restricts mental
process without adding any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a particular
application or provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 13-24 recite a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising
instructions to perform the methods of claims 1-12, respectively. Therefore, claims 13-24 are
rejected by the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claims 1-12. In addition, the non-transitory computer readable medium is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to
no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components (MPEP
2106.05(f)).
Response to arguments
The objection to the specification for failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claim subject matter in the previous office action has not been addressed. Therefore, the objection is re-stated.
With respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues “The similarity involves …..This technical process for selecting reference components goes beyond mere abstract ideas”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as a human, with the use of physical aid, such as pen, paper, or calculator can reasonably analyze parameters and evaluate the similarities between parameters as claimed. Applicant further argues “This approach significantly enhances the reliability and effectiveness of failure prediction…”, however, this statement appears to be conclusory since it shows a bare assertion of the improvement.
Examiner notes that Applicant referred to training examples 39-40 and 42 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. Examiner provided a detailed rejection with complete analysis and rationale when considered claims as a whole as presented in the 101 rejection above.
With respect to the 103 rejection: the 103 rejection is withdrawn in view of the specific amendments made to independent claims 1 and 13 and Applicant’s arguments.
With respect to the 112 rejection: the previous 112 rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment. However, the amendment necessitates a new ground of 112 rejection as presented above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kieu Vu whose telephone number is (571)272-4057. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Dave Wiley, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-4150. 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 Patent Center.
Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status
information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users
only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system,
contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To
schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request
(AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171