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 .
Claims 13-22 are presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submission filed on May 8, 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 8, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 14-17 and 19-20 recite the limitation "the number of divisions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the first evaluation index". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14 and 18 recite the limitation "the generation of the plurality of subsets" and “the training data set”. Claim 18 further recites “the first training data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claims 14, 17, and 19-20 recite the limitation "the functions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the first label" and “the second label”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20 recites a formula that is substantially similar to one that is already recited by claim 13. Specifically, it recites that “the number of divisions n” is calculated as “n = count(first label)/(count(second label) x a), where a is a coefficient.” Claim 13, however, already recites that “a number of the subsets [is determined] according to n = Nnormal / (Nabnormal x a), where Nnormal is a number of the normal data, Nabnormal is a number of the abnormal data, and a is a coefficient defining a target imbalance level”. Assuming that the “subsets” and the “divisions” are the same thing, the “count(first label)” and “count(second label)” appear to be broader variants of claim 13’s “Nnormal” and “Nabnormal”, respectively. Furthermore, the coefficient a in claim 13 is more narrowly claimed than in claim 20, since claim 13 specifies that a represents a target imbalance level and claim 20 does not. Thus, claim 20 does not appear to limit claim 13 further.
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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (“2019 PEG”).
Claim 13
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of articles of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
[D]etermining that the measurement data [are] imbalanced when a ratio of a number of pieces of normal data to a number of pieces of abnormal data exceeds a threshold: This limitation could encompass mentally determining that the data are imbalanced when a ratio exceeds a threshold.
[D]ividing the measurement data into a plurality of subsets each including: (i) all abnormal data, and (ii) mutually different portions of the normal data such that each subset satisfies a balance condition: This limitation could encompass mentally dividing the measurement data in the claimed manner.
[D]etermining a number of the subsets according to n = Nnormal / (Nabnormal x a), where Nnormal is a number of the normal data, Nabnormal is a number of the abnormal data, and a is a coefficient defining a target imbalance level: This limitation could encompass mentally determining the number of subsets according to the formula. Applying the formula is also a mathematical calculation.
[C]lassifying newly acquired sensor measurement data by an integrated decision: This limitation could encompass mentally classifying the data.
[F]orming an abnormal determination region, represented by overlapping classification regions defined by decision boundaries … in a feature space of the sensor measurement data, the abnormal determination region being expanded relative to a determination region generated … without dividing the measurement data: This limitation could encompass mentally forming the abnormal determination region represented by overlapping classification regions defined by decision boundaries.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of an information processing apparatus installed in a plant monitoring system, cause the apparatus to perform operations: This limitation amounts to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
[A]cquiring sensor measurement data of industrial equipment used in a manufacturing plant: This limitation is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
[S]toring the measurement data in association with labels indicating normal operation or abnormal operation of the industrial equipment: This limitation is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
[T]raining a plurality of learning models respectively using the plurality of subsets: This limitation amounts to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
[O]utputting an abnormality determination signal for controlling plant monitoring or maintenance operation based on the classification result: This limitation is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The claim further recites that the classification decision is “obtained by majority voting of outputs of the plurality of learning models”, that the decision boundaries are defined the “the plurality of learning models”, and that the relevant comparison is to a “learning model trained without dividing the measurement data”. These limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with generic classes of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis at this step mirrors that of step 2A, prong 2, with the exception that the acquiring and outputting limitations, in addition to reciting insignificant extra-solution activity, also recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), and the storing limitation recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to a mentally performable method of generating models by balancing datasets. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14
Step 1: An article of manufacture, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites “determining, before the generating of the plurality of subsets, the number of divisions when dividing the training data set into the plurality of subsets.” This limitation could encompass the mental determination of the subsets.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See claim 13 analysis.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. See claim 13 analysis.
Claim 15
Step 1: An article of manufacture, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites that the “determining of the number of divisions comprises determining the number of divisions based on information inputted by a user.” This limitation could encompass mentally performing this determination.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See claim 14 analysis.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. See claim 14 analysis.
Claim 16
Step 1: An article of manufacture, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia, that “the determining of the number of divisions comprises determining the number of divisions … based on an initial setting.” This limitation could encompass the mental determination of the number of divisions.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim additionally recites that this determination occurs “automatically”. However, this is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim additionally recites that this determination occurs “automatically”. However, this is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 17
Step 1: An article of manufacture, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites “repeatedly updating the determined number of divisions to a different value within a predetermined range, calculating the first evaluation index based on each updated number of divisions, and determining the number of divisions to be the number of divisions for which the value of the first evaluation index is highest.” These limitations could encompass the mental updating of the divisions, calculation of the evaluation index, and determining of the number of divisions.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See claim 14 analysis.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. See claim 14 analysis.
Claim 18
Step 1: An article of manufacture, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites that the “generating of the plurality of subsets comprises generating another subset by newly sampling the first training data from the training data set after excluding, from the training data set, the first training data sampled into one subset.” This limitation could encompass the mental generation of the subsets by sampling from a subset of the training data.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See claim 13 analysis.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. See claim 13 analysis.
Claim 19
Step 1: An article of manufacture, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia, “determining the number of divisions so that a ratio of a count of the first label to a count of the second label in one subset is equal to or less than a threshold.” This limitation could encompass mentally determining the number of divisions in the claimed manner.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See claim 14 analysis.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. See claim 14 analysis.
Claim 20
Step 1: An article of manufacture, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites “calculating the number of divisions n as number of divisions n = count(first label)/(count(second label) x a), where a is a coefficient.” This recites a mathematical calculation that could be performed in the mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See claim 19 analysis.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. See claim 19 analysis.
Claim 21
Step 1: The claim is directed to an information processing apparatus comprising a controller and a storage; therefore, the claim is directed to the statutory category of machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same judicial exceptions as in claim 13.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The analysis at this step is identical to that of claim 13, with the exception that this claim is directed to an “information processing apparatus installed in a plant monitoring system, the information processing apparatus comprising: a controller including one or more processors; and a storage”. However, this is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis at this step is identical to that of claim 13, with the exception that this claim is directed to an “information processing apparatus installed in a plant monitoring system, the information processing apparatus comprising: a controller including one or more processors; and a storage”. However, this is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 22
Step 1: The claim is directed to a method; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same judicial exceptions as in claim 13.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The analysis at this step is identical to that of claim 13, except insofar as claim 22 is directed to a method rather than to a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis at this step is identical to that of claim 13, except insofar as claim 22 is directed to a method rather than to a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 8, 2026 (“Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are, except insofar as rendered moot by the withdrawal of a ground of rejection, not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that new claim 13 is eligible under 35 USC § 101 because it recites, inter alia, execution by processors installed in a plant monitoring system, acquiring sensor measurement data, outputting an abnormality determination signal, and controlling plant monitoring based on the classification result. Remarks at 6-7. However, it should be noted that the independent claims do not, in fact, affirmatively recite controlling plant monitoring, but rather “output[ting] an abnormality determination signal for controlling plant monitoring”. That is, the claim only affirmatively recites outputting data and then recites that the data thus output are intended to be used in controlling plant monitoring or maintenance. Moreover, outputting and acquiring data are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional for the reasons given in the rejection. The claim as a whole is not directed to plant maintenance as such, but rather to processing of imbalanced anomaly data that happens to be used for plant maintenance.
The arguments with regard to the art rejection, Remarks at 7-9, are moot in light of the withdrawal of that ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C VAUGHN whose telephone number is (571)272-4849. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a-5:00p ET.
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, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at 571-272-7796. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN C VAUGHN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights