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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/17/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
102/103 Rejections
Based on applicant’s filed amendments, the previously set forth art rejections have been overcome.
101 Rejections
Applicant argues the newly amended claims are integrated into a practical application with significantly more, however the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s argues that claim 1 operates within a specific technological environment, including specific hardware components (e.g., programmable logic controller (PLC), sensing devices, automation equipment), real-time monitoring of contact points, real-time anomaly detection based on specialized graph-based data processing for PLC data, and control logic inspection of the programmable logic controller by identifying the specific faulty contact point based on the data processing results; however, this is not found persuasive. The argued limitation were found to be additional elements merely acting as tools for performing the abstract idea; as the result of performance of the abstract idea does nothing to improve these additional elements. Further, the additional elements for collecting data, i.e. sensing devices, merely collect the needed data for performing the abstract idea. The sensing devices are neither improved or bettered by the performance of the abstract idea, thereby failing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application with significantly more. Lastly, the automation equipment simply links the abstract idea to a field of use, as there is no real-world action improving the operation of the automation equipment based on the results of the abstract idea.
Applicant further alleges that the claims are an improvement on the technology of detecting presence or absence of anomalies in automation equipment. This argument is not persuasive. The mental/mathematical concepts recited for detecting anomalies are some of the abstract concepts identified by the examiner in Step 2A. In Step 2B, it cannot be the abstract concepts themselves that improve a technology or technical field but rather the additional elements or extra solution activities such that the claims themselves amount to significantly more than the abstract concept.
Lastly, displaying a graph does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because it fails to provide an "inventive concept" that goes beyond mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Such claims lack meaningful limitations on the abstract idea and do not implement it in a way that improves a particular technology or solves a specific problem beyond the abstract idea itself.
The examiner is not persuaded.
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 1-7 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.
With respect to claim 1, the recitation “performing real-time anomaly detection by inputting the graph data, including the positive edge index data and the negative edge index data, to an anomaly detecting model; and performing control logic inspection of the programmable logic controller by analyzing the detected anomaly to identify a specific contact point in the automation equipment where the detected anomaly occurs” is unclear. What is the interrelationship between the model and performing inspection to identify a contact point where the detected anomaly. How is the model used in detecting where the anomaly occurs? Is the model involved in the inspection and if so, how? There appears to be a disconnect between the model and scope of the claim, as it is unclear as to how performing real-time anomaly detection using the model has any involvement in the inspection. Clarification is required.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “(a) classifying each section in which a contact point value changes in log data expressed as a Gantt chart as one state; (b) identifying a major state in the classified states, and converting the log data into a node matrix according to an order of occurrence of the major state; and (c) converting the log data into edge index data by defining a connection relation between the classified states, expressing the classified state as a node, and expressing the connection relation of the classified state as a positive edge represented by value ‘1’ and a negative edge represented by value “0” to convert the log data into positive edge index data and negative edge index data; wherein the (c) converting includes: deleting a node that does not correspond to the major state from the node matrix data, and connecting previous and subsequent nodes connected to the deleted node to convert the log data into positive edge index data, and converting edges, other than the positive edge, among all edges that are generated between nodes into negative edge index data; performing real-time anomaly detection by inputting the graph data, including the positive edge index data and the negative edge index data, to an anomaly detecting model; and performing control logic inspection of the programmable logic controller by analyzing the detected anomaly to identify a specific contact point in the automation equipment where the detected anomaly occurs” which has been identified as an abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental processes. Giving the claim the broadest and most reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, the claimed identifying classified states, converting log data into node matrix data to an order of major state which includes deleting nodes and connecting previous and subsequent nodes can be performed in the human mind. The specification merely details a data conversion process without explicit details that would prevent the conversion from being performed in the human mind. Further, expressing the classified state as either a positive or negative node, again, is a limitation that can occur in the human mind. Although expressing implies some sort of presentation of the classification, using a pen or paper as a physical aid does not negate the mental nature of the limitation. The limitations directed towards preforming real-time anomaly detection by inputting the graph data into a model and preforming control logic inspection again is capable performed in the human mind when viewing the data and then inspecting the control logic of the controller by analyzing the detected anomaly. The claimed model appears to receive the data, however, it is unclear its importance in the anomaly detection; see the above 112 rejection.
Although the claim recites generic computer elements like a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, these elements are merely acting as tools for performing the identified abstract idea. Neither the processor or memory are improved during the operation of the abstract idea or its result, thereby failing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(a)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the graphed data, i.e. generated graph data for detecting an anomaly or a Gantt Chart merely link the abstract idea to field of use. How the data is presented during or after does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. At most, the limitations directed towards how the data is to be presented reads as mere instructions to apply the exceptions. MPEP 2106.05(f)
The limitations directed towards collecting log data from contact points of a programmable logic controller that controls an automation equipment at regular intervals and measuring at least one sensor value, using one or more sensing devices in the automation equipment, one or more conditions of the automation equipment and adding the sensor value to the log data reads as mere data gathering; as neither the result or the performance of the abstract idea improves the data collection steps or sensing devices. Further, applicant’s filed specification discloses these sensors as conventional voltage and temperature sensors being used located and used in their conventional manner. MPEP 2106.05(g)
The claimed programmable logic controller and automation equipment, as recited, merely links the abstract to technological field; as neither the controller or equipment are improved by the performance or result of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that sufficiently to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as the generated graph data for detecting an anomaly and the Gantt Chart merely link the abstract idea to field of use, failing to provide significantly more. The converted data is mere converted data and has no physical or tangible form. The collecting of log data, in combination or alone, does not amount to significantly more, as the collected data has no real-world impact to the other additional elements and is merely fed into the abstract idea. The generically claimed sensing devices, again, are merely acting in their conventional manner of collected the needed data from performing the abstract idea. Lastly, the claimed programmable controller and equipment, as recited, merely link the abstract idea to field of use, as there is no real-world effect to these additional elements.
Claim 2 further defines the classifying each section of the abstract idea by reciting an assigning step. The assigning step can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, thereby failing to providing significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 3 further defines the identifying aspect of the abstract idea by reciting a counting step and identifying step. The counting and identifying steps can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, thereby failing to providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 4 further defines the identifying aspect of the abstract idea by reciting the step of assigning data a code to the identified major state. The assigning code can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, thereby failing to providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 5 further defines the identifying aspect of the abstract idea by reciting “converting the log data into node matrix data according to an order of occurrence of the major state to which the sensor value is added state”. The adding and converting step can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, thereby failing to providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 6 further defines the identifying aspect of the abstract idea by reciting “selecting and adding one representative value when there are two or more sensor values output from one sensor in the section”. The selecting and adding step can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, thereby failing to providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 7 further defines the abstract idea, i.e. the further defined condition, fails to provide significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seo et al. (2017/0193131) which teaches a similar method that uses Gantt charts for logging data and converting that data to generated a graph.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached on 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853