DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . in an Amendment filed on 03/05/2026, claims 1-20 were amended. Thus, Claims 1-20 are still pending in this Application.
Response to Amendments/remarks
Applicant’s argument/remarks, on page 11, with respect to objections to the specification have been fully considered but they are respectfully not persuasive. Therefore, objections to the specification have been maintained.
On page 9, the Applicant argues that:
“The specification is objected to on the grounds that the variables in Equation 8 are not sufficiently defined. The Applicant respectfully traverses the specification objection, since the current claims do not recite the details of Equation 8. The Applicant submits that the original disclosure meets the standard set forth in the MPEP "All amendments and claims must find descriptive basis in the original disclosure." MPEP 608, emphasis added. For at least these reasons, the Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the specification objection” These arguments are respectfully not persuasive.
In response to the statements above, the MPEP 608 further recites “a patent application as filed must contain a full and clear disclosure of the invention in the manner prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(a)…”
Also, MPEP 608.01 or 37 CFR 1.71 requires “(a) The specification must include a written description of the invention or discovery and of the manner and process of making and using the same, and is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention or discovery appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.”
Thus, equation 8 is part of the disclosed invention. Thus, while equation is not explicitly recited in the claims, the estimation of the reliability or the regression curves depends indirectly on equation 8. The specification as filed must contain a full and clear disclosure of the invention in the manner prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as required in MPEP 608.01 or 37 CFR 1.71.
Applicant’s argument/remarks, on pages 9-11, with respect to rejections to claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they respectfully not persuasive. Therefore, rejections to the claims under 35 USC § 101 have been maintained.
On pages 11-12, the Applicant argues that:
“…claim 1 includes additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application (see Id.) claim 1 is not an abstract idea. In particular, claim 1 recites specific physical components including an inverter configured to drive a motor load, and an electronic memory and processor configured to control the inverter… The Office Action incorrectly characterizes the inverter as a generic component. An inverter is a specific, concrete industrial power-conversion device that conditions and controls electrical power delivered to a motor load. Also, the claimed processor and memory are not invoked as general-purpose computing tools in the abstract either. Rather, they are configured to control the inverter and to perform reliability estimation in the context of operating that physical system”. These arguments are respectfully not persuasive.
In response to the arguments above, the inverter/system configured to drive load, processor and/or memory to perform a calculation are elements that are recited at high level of generality and simply represents no more than instructions “to apply” the abstract idea on a system or to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment or field of use of motors drivers, and a generic computer/processor and its components and cannot provide an inventive concept as stated by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h)). The invention as claimed does not recite the specific component of the inverter for which the reliability is estimated and does not recite any specific condition measured such as temperature, humidity, and so on, as argued. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because as depicted in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, the abstract idea of calculating values and outputting values are not used for the control or improvement of the inverter during the controlling of it. With respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements such as a processor, memory, inverter/system which are recited in high level of generality that represents no more than instructions “to apply” the abstract idea on a system or to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment or field of use of motor drivers, and a generic computer/processor and its components and cannot provide an inventive concept as stated by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h)). The system simply uses a model to performs a calculation or value such as reliability and perform a comparison to determine if the estimated value is above/below than a threshold in order to generate a warning/alarm. Furthermore, with respect to the arguments of claim 7, simply linking or applying the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, such as a transistor, capacitor or fan, in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (see 2106.05 (h) …The courts often cite to Parker v. Flook as providing a classic example of a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token post solution components did not make the concept patentable") (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)… Although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula,..). This case is similar to the Parker V. Flook case, simply appending an intended field of use does not amount to significantly more than the Abstract idea.
On page 12, the Applicant further argues that:
“Moreover, claim 1 recites several limitations that are neither mathematical operations nor mental processes as alleged in the Office Action. The limitations "control the inverter," "collect operating data from one or more sensors of the inverter," and "transmit the warning as an input to a maintenance scheduling system" are not mathematical concepts, but rather steps involving interaction with physical components. These limitations are also not mental processes as they are not practically performable by the human mind. For example, a human mind is not capable of controlling an inverter, collecting data from sensors, or transmitting a warning to a maintenance scheduling system”. These arguments are respectfully not persuasive.
In response to the previous arguments, the enumerated and argued limitations/steps or additional elements were not described in the rejection as an abstract idea. They were considered additional elements that did not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and were nor sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as explained in the rejection.
On page 12, the Applicant further argues that:
“The additional elements of claim 1 are not merely nominal or tangential, but are instead functionally integrated into the claimed process for monitoring and maintaining inverter reliability. In particular, generating a warning and transmitting the warning to a maintenance scheduling system are performed in response to determining that a deviation value exceeds a defined threshold. These steps link the reliability analysis to concrete operational actions within the industrial environment and enable coordinated maintenance of the inverter. Accordingly, the additional elements meaningfully limit the scope of the claim and apply any alleged abstract concept in a specific technological context, rather than constituting insignificant post-solution activity”. These arguments are respectfully not persuasive.
In response to the previous arguments, these are post-solution activities of simply outputting data. The claim invention as recited does not perform any maintenance on the inverter and the inverter is not controlled as a result of calculating values or outputs using the abstract idea.
On page 12, the Applicant further argues that:
“…system. As in Example 41, these additional elements apply any alleged abstract concept in a specific and practical technological setting - here, predictive maintenance of an inverter-based industrial system. Accordingly, under similar reasoning used in Example 41”. These arguments are respectfully not persuasive.
The current claimed invention and example 41 are not similar. The example 41 which was considered as having a mathematical concepts, and reciting well-understood, routine, conventional subject matter still integrated the abstract idea into a practical application of providing secure private communication between two computer by using a n encoding system of data. In this Application, data is collected/observed, data is calculated and compared to decide that a condition/abnormality in the system exists. However, the system is not improved because it is unclear if the maintenance ever takes place. For instance, vehicle nowadays monitor data and output warnings (engine or transmission warnings), but they still break down because the operators never perform the maintenance. However, in an instance, when a vehicle monitors data, outputs warnings and sends a command/action to stop the car to avoid damaging the car, then, this could be considered an Application of the abstract idea into a practical application.
On page 12, the Applicant further argues that:
“Further making clear the present claims are a practical application, the limitations of claim 1 provide a technical solution to a technical problem. In particular, existing solutions are inaccurate and unable to perform real-time detection. See Para. [0001] of the filed specification. As described at least in Para. [0051], the predictive maintenance features enable the system to adaptively respond to changing operating conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity, etc.) throughout the component's lifecycle, resulting in improved reliability prediction, reduced downtime, and adaptive real-time detection. Id. For at least these reasons, claim 1 is integrated into a practical application and is not directed to a judicial exception”. These arguments are respectfully not persuasive.
In response to the arguments above, the improvement in technology should be recited and reflected in the claims and not in the disclosure in order to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and/or to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims as recited do not perform or recite any function/limitations “to adaptively respond to changing operating conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity, etc.)” or resulting in improved reliability prediction, reduced downtime, and adaptive real-time detection as previously argued and as previously responded.
On page 13, the Applicant further argues that:
Claim 1 amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea under Step 2B of the
analysis…. Claim 1 recites specific, concrete structural elements: an inverter having an output configured to drive a motor load; an electronic memory that stores data and program instructions; and a processor configured to execute the program instructions to control the inverter. The reliability estimation steps are not performed in isolation, but are implemented within a physical industrial system including specific inverter components, such as transistors, MOSFETs, capacitors, and cooling fans, as recited in claim 7. In addition, claim 1 recites generating a warning when a defined threshold condition is met and transmitting that warning to a maintenance scheduling system operatively connected to the industrial system. As discussed above, this transmission is not merely insignificant post-solution activity, but forms part of the claimed workflow linking reliability evaluation to maintenance planning within the industrial environment. These elements, considered as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than an abstract idea and provide an inventive concept that applies any alleged judicial exception in a specific industrial context. As such, claim 1 includes significantly more than an abstract idea and is patent eligible under Step 2B of the analysis”. These arguments are respectfully unpersuasive.
In response to the previous arguments, as stated above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements such as a processor, memory, inverter/system which are recited in high level of generality that represents no more than instructions “to apply” the abstract idea on a system or to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment or field of use of motor drivers, and a generic computer/processor and its components and cannot provide an inventive concept as stated by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h)). The system simply uses a model to performs a calculation or value such as reliability and perform a comparison to determine if the estimated value is above/below than a threshold in order to generate a warning/alarm. Furthermore, with respect to the amended claim 7, simply linking or applying the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, such as a transistor, capacitor or fan, in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (see 2106.05 (h) …The courts often cite to Parker v. Flook as providing a classic example of a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token post solution components did not make the concept patentable") (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)… Although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula,..). This case is similar to the Parker V. Flook case, simply appending an intended field of use does not amount to significantly more than the Abstract idea.
Applicant’s argument/remarks, on pages 14-15, with respect to rejections to claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 103(a) have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Therefore, rejections to the claims have been withdrawn based on the amendments.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The original disclosure paragraph [0051] recites an equations for an standard deviation (equation 8). However, the parameters described therein have not been described in the specification. For instance, [0051], recites
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the reference letters, t, X, D, M, pm, CMk, Pk, Xv, ɑ have not been described.
See MPEP 1.71a “(a) The specification must include a written description of the invention or discovery and of the manner and process of making and using the same, and is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention or discovery appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same”.
Appropriate correction 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively recite in part:
“a) generate an updated value for each of a plurality of weighting vector parameters, based on root mean square errors calculated based at least on the operating data and respective reliability estimates generated by a plurality of predictors;
b) each of the plurality of predictors generates a predicted reliability curve derived through regression analysis to output a predicted reliability of a component of the inverter, and the plurality of weighting vector parameters comprise coefficients for linearly combining predicted reliability curves;
c) … determine, for a first weighting vector parameter of the plurality of weighting vector parameters, that a deviation value of the first weighting vector parameter exceeds a deviation threshold indicative of profile degradation”.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers mathematical relationships which is identified as an example of mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas and/or steps that are easily performed in the mind and thus covers a mental process (See MPEP 210604(a)(2), III). For instance, generating an updated value for each of a plurality of weighting vector parameters, based on root mean square errors calculated based at least on the operating data and respective reliability estimates generated by a plurality of predictors is a simple calculation that relies on an equation (see equation 2 and step 204 in Fig. 2; also, see disclosure [0034]) and thus, a mathematical equation is used or relied upon to perform this step. The plurality of predictors each configured to generate(ing) a curve derived through regression analysis to output a predicted reliability of the component are mathematical models that are used to perform and output reliability calculations, thus, a mathematical equation is used or relied upon to perform this step. Step c) involves the calculation of a deviation value using an equation (see Fig. 2 step 205-206) and involve the determination and comparison of two values such as the deviation with threshold value, which is also considered a mathematical comparison of two numbers. Furthermore, the claim limitations steps a-c, above also cover mental process wherein data is observed/collected, evaluated, and a judgements (estimation or determination of value) is obtained, wherein these steps can be easily calculated mentally by a person or by using pen and paper once the corresponding data is obtained. For instance, the calculation of predictors using stored collected data and using regression to generate a curve and then generate a predicted/future value of reliability are steps that can be easily calculated using pen and paper without the need of a specific computer. Thus, the claim limitations steps above cover mental process wherein data is observed/collected, evaluated and a judgements (estimation or determination of value) is obtained and/or mathematical concepts wherein mathematical relationships of variables are used to estimate or calculate values as described above. The comparison of a result is an easy step that can easily be performed in the mind by finding the results and comparing it with a predefined threshold.
The judicial exceptions above are not integrated into a practical application because the claims recites additional elements such as “d) an inverter having an output configured to drive a motor load, e) an electronic memory that stores data and program instructions, f) a processor configured to execute the program instructions to control the inverter and collect data and g) generate a warning in response to the determination”, and which are recited in high level of generality. The additional elements such as the inverter to drive a motor load, the processor and memory, which are recited in high level of generality that represents no more than instructions “to apply” the abstract idea on a system or to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment or field of use of motors drivers, and a generic computer/processor and its components and cannot provide an inventive concept as stated by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h)). Also, collecting data and using the collected data in the updating step, and which is recited in a high level of generality is considered insignificant extra solution and pre-solution activities of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The step of generating an warning/alarm based on a comparison, and transmit a warning as an input to a maintenance scheduling system operatively connected to the industrial system to facilitate predictive maintenance of the inverter which is recited at a high level of generality, represents insignificant extra solution activity including a post-solution activities as stated by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and which are also well known, well understood and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The transmitting the warning to facilitate predictive maintenance of the inverter is an intended use or field of use limitation, then it cannot integrate the judicial exception (see 2106.04(d)(2)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements d), e) and f) which are recited in high level of generality that represents no more than instructions “to apply” the abstract idea on a system or to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment or field of use of motor drivers, and a generic computer/processor and its components and cannot provide an inventive concept as stated by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h)). The step of generating an warning/alarm based on a comparison, which are which recited in a high level of generality, and represent insignificant extra solution including a post-solution activities as stated by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and which are well known, well understood and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(g) “See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering” also, see MPEP 2106.05(d) “Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity …iv… and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at). The additional element of transmitting a warning as an input to a maintenance scheduling system operatively connected to the industrial system to facilitate predictive maintenance of the inverter which is recited at a high level of generality, represents insignificant extra solution activity including a post-solution activities of outputting data as stated by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and which are also well known, well understood and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The transmitting the warning to facilitate predictive maintenance of the inverter is an intended use or field of use limitation that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it does not impose meaningful limits of the claim (see 2106.05(b)(III) “Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim” and see 2106.05(h)).
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 depend from claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, and thus recite the limitations and the abstract ideas of their respective parent claims.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 further recite the additional element “to generate the updated values by calculating, for each of the plurality of predictors, a ratio between:
The root mean square error of the respective predictor, and
a sum of root mean square errors of all of the plurality of predictors, wherein the weighting vector parameters are individually associated with a respective predictor of the plurality of predictors”. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers mathematical relationships which is identified as an example of mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas by itself. The term predictors seems to suggest collected variables and/or size samples of data collected. Using variables and/or samples of collected data are considered insignificant extra solution and pre-solution activities of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 “…calculate a deviation value for each of the weighting vector parameters by subtracting one from a product of:
the first weighting vector parameter, and
a number of the weighting vector parameters;
compare the deviation value with a deviation threshold. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers mathematical relationships which is identified as an example of mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas by itself. For instance, the deviation is calculated using the mathematical equation shown in Fig. 2 step 205 or equation 4. The limitation “determining that at least one of the deviation values exceeds the deviation threshold” involves the comparison of two values which can be done mathematically.
The judicial exceptions above are not integrated into a practical application because the claims recites additional elements as state in claim 1 above, do not integrate this abstract for reasons specified above and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 further recites “4 wherein the weighting vector parameters are of one of: different operating durations of the component of the industrial system, different operating frequencies of the component; different operating temperatures of the component; and different operating voltages of the component.”, which are recited in a high level of generality and is considered insignificant extra solution and pre-solution activities of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and/or represents mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea or to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment of monitoring power devices (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), which cannot provide an inventive concept. For instance, using collected data of samples of different size, or using collected data including voltage, frequency, or temperature to determine/calculate the reliability of a component represents mere data gathering to be used in the abstract idea and/or simply link the abstract idea to a technological environment of monitoring power devices. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
5-6, 12-13 and 19, further recites “calculate the update to the weighting vector parameters by penalizing predictors having higher root mean square error values”, iteratively update the weighting vector parameters based on additional collected data, wherein the weighting vector parameters are initially set to equal values prior to the iterative updates”. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers mathematical relationships which is identified as an example of mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas by itself. As stated above, the calculating and updating steps involves the calculation of vector parameters values based on collected data and based on/relying upon equation 2 (see original disclosure [0034]). Thus, the claim limitations steps above cover mental process wherein data is observed/collected, evaluated and a judgements (estimation or determination of value) is obtained and/or mathematical concepts wherein mathematical relationships of variables are used to estimate or calculate values as described above. The comparison of a result is an easy step that can easily be performed in the mind by finding the results and comparing it with a predefined threshold.
Claim 7, 14, and 20 further recites wherein the component comprises one of: an insulated gate bipolar transistor, a metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET), a capacitor, or a fan”, recited at high level of generality that represents no more than instructions “to apply” the abstract idea on a generic component of a system/inverter component or to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment or field of use of components of inverters such as the enumerated above, and cannot provide an inventive concept as stated by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Reasons for Allowance
Provided that the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 are overcome the Claims would be allowed since no prior art of has been applied to claims 1-20. None of the references cited or previously cited in the rejections or not relied upon alone or in combination teach explicitly or implicitly the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 including:
As per claim 1, 8, 15, An industrial system, method and non-transitory computer readable medium, respectively comprising:…
“…generate an updated value for each of a plurality of weighting vector parameters, based on root mean square errors calculated based at least on the operating data and respective reliability estimates generated by a plurality of predictors…
determine, for a first weighting vector parameter of the plurality of weighting vector parameters, that a deviation value of the first weighting vector parameter exceeds a deviation threshold indicative of profile degradation (see );
generate a warning in response to the determination (see ); and
transmit the warning as an input to a maintenance scheduling system operatively connected to the industrial system to facilitate predictive maintenance of the inverter”.
As dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 depend from an allowable base claim, they would be allowable at least for the same reasons as noted previously.
The prior art of record Suryanarayana et al (US 20230229220) in view of Chueh et al (US 20200151610), Li et al (Degradation Modeling and Remaining Useful Life Prediction of Aircraft Engines Using Ensemble Learning), Xiaomeng Li et al (LIBS quantitative analysis for vanadium slags based on selective ensemble learning, hereinafter referred as Xiaomeng), Agrawal et al (US 20230359449), Sramek (US 5551435), and Sisler et al (US 20170322063) neither anticipates nor renders obvious the above-recited combination of limitations for at least the reasons of allowance stated above and Applicants arguments of 03/05/2026.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Relevant Art cited by The Examiner
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the Applicant’s art and those art considered reasonably pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure (see MPEP 707.05c).
Google Ai (profile degradation”) teaches the meaning of profile degradation with respect to assets for claim interpretation. Google Ai (“determine a percent deviation of a weight vector ”) teaches a formula to calculate a percent deviation of a weight vector. However, it does not teach correlation a threshold of weight vector deviation to a profile degradation and comparing the weight parameter deviation to the threshold and determining to output a warning message based on the comparison.
Lee et al (KR 20030044437) teaches an image recognizing method based on a control network is provided to extract an object and control a camera in real time using a motion vector comprising calculating the deviation of a pseudo weight vector. However, it does not teach at least correlating a threshold of a weight vector deviation to a profile degradation and comparing the weight parameter deviation to the threshold and determining to output a warning message based on the comparison.
Zhang (CN 110930241) a credit card approval method, comprising using a target discrimination model trained, determining and updating a target weight vector and a target deviation (see page 2 par. 1), determining if the target weight vector in the weight value is less than a preset weight setting, wherein the target deviation are bias in a mode (see page 7). However, Zang does not teach at least correlating a threshold of a weight vector deviation to a profile degradation and comparing the weight parameter deviation to the threshold and determining to output a warning message based on the comparison.
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.
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid or differentiate from such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLVIN LOPEZ ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7686 and fax (571) 270-8686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Robert Fennema, can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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 for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/O. L./
Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights