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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-2, 5, and 8-21 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A monitoring apparatus comprising: at least one processor; an association acquisition unit that uses the at least one processor to acquire, for each of a plurality of pieces of equipment in a plant, an association with at least one sensor monitoring a state of the each of the plurality of pieces of equipment; a calculation unit that uses the at least one processor to calculate, based on at least one measurement value from the at least one sensor associated with each piece of equipment of the plurality of pieces of equipment, a state value of each piece of equipment; a learning processing unit that uses the at least one processor to perform a processing to generate, by learning, a model calculating, from the at least one measurement value of the at least one sensor associated with each piece of equipment, the state value of the each piece of equipment, wherein the calculation unit uses the at least one processor to calculate, for each piece of equipment, the state value from the at least one measurement value by using the model; a ranking unit that uses the at least one processor to rank the plurality of pieces of equipment according to a change width or a change rate in the state value; and a display processing unit that uses the at least one processor to perform a processing to display an information screen corresponding to the ranking of the plurality of pieces of equipment; wherein for each piece of equipment of the plurality of ranked pieces of equipment: the display processing unit uses the at least one processor to perform a processing to display a learning button for instructing to generate the model for the piece of equipment, and the learning processing unit uses the at least one processor to perform, in response to the learning button being pressed, the processing to generate the model for the piece of equipment.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional element”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
The steps of “to calculate, based on at least one measurement value from the at least one sensor associated with each piece of equipment of the plurality of pieces of equipment, a state value of each piece of equipment, a model calculating, from the at least one measurement value of the at least one sensor associated with each piece of equipment, the state value of the each piece of equipment, to calculate, for each piece of equipment, the state value from the at least one measurement value by using the model, and to rank the plurality of pieces of equipment according to a change width or a change rate in the state value; wherein for each piece of equipment of the plurality of ranked pieces of equipment and to generate the model for the piece of equipment” are treated as belonging to the mathematical calculations grouping.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
Claim 1: A monitoring apparatus comprising: at least one processor; an association acquisition unit that uses the at least one processor to acquire, for each of a plurality of pieces of equipment in a plant, an association with at least one sensor monitoring a state of the each of the plurality of pieces of equipment; a calculation unit that uses the at least one processor, a learning processing unit that uses the at least one processor to perform a processing to generate, by learning, the calculation unit, a ranking unit, and a display processing unit configured to perform a processing to display an information screen corresponding to the ranking of the plurality of pieces of equipment, a display processing unit that uses the at least one processor to perform a processing to display an information screen corresponding to the ranking of the plurality of pieces of equipment; the display processing unit uses the at least one processor to perform a processing to display a learning button for instructing , and the learning processing unit uses the at least one processor to perform, in response to the learning button being pressed, the processing.
Claim 19: A monitoring method comprising: acquiring, by a monitoring apparatus, for each of a plurality of pieces of equipment in a plant, an association with at least one sensor monitoring a state of the each of the plurality of pieces of equipment, ranking. by the monitoring apparatus, the plurality of pieces of equipment according to a change width or a change rate in the state value: and performing, by the monitoring apparatus, generating, by the monitoring apparatus, by learning, a processing to display an information screen corresponding to the ranking of the plurality of pieces of equipment; the display processing unit uses the at least one processor to perform a processing to display a learning button for instructing , and the learning processing unit uses the at least one processor to perform, in response to the learning button being pressed, the processing..
Claim 20: A non-transitory computer readable medium having recorded thereon a monitoring program that, when executed by a computer having at least one processor, causes the computer to function as a monitoring apparat us comprising: an association acquisition unit that uses the at least one processor to acquire, for each of a plurality of pieces of equipment in a plant, an association with at least one sensor monitoring a state of the each of the plurality of pieces of equipment; a calculation unit that uses the at least one processor a learning processing unit that uses the at least one processor to perform a processing to generate, by learning, wherein the calculation unit uses the at least one processor a ranking unit that uses the at least one processor to rank the plurality of pieces of equipment according to a change width or a change rate in the state value; and a display processing unit that uses the at least one processor to perform a processing to display an information screen corresponding to the ranking of the plurality of pieces of equipment; the display processing unit uses the at least one processor to perform a processing to display a learning button for instructing , and the learning processing unit uses the at least one processor to perform, in response to the learning button being pressed, the processing.
The above steps of a monitoring apparatus comprising: at least one processor; an association acquisition unit that uses the at least one processor to acquire, for each of a plurality of pieces of equipment in a plant, an association with at least one sensor monitoring a state of the each of the plurality of pieces of equipment, a calculation unit that uses the at least one processor, a learning processing unit that uses the at least one processor, and a display processing unit that uses the at least one processor are generically recited and represent mere data gathering steps (insignificant extra-solution activity) necessary to execute the abstract idea, and the display processing unit uses the at least one processor to perform a processing to display a learning button for instructing , and the learning processing unit uses the at least one processor to perform, in response to the learning button being pressed, the processing are generically recited and not meaningful to execute the abstract idea.
The additional element of at least one processor is an example of generic computer equipment (components) that is generally recited and, therefore, is not qualified as a particular machine.
The additional elements in Claim 20 such as a non-transitory computer readable medium is an example of generic computer equipment (components) that is generally recited and, therefore, is not qualified as a particular machine. The claim limitations that generically recite a ranking unit configured to rank the plurality of pieces of equipment according to a change width or a change rate in the state value and the learning process unit, and the calculation unit are not meaningful because they represent insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record including references in the submitted IDS (2/22/2024) by the Applicant (Iiboshi and Maeda).
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2,5, and 8-21 provide additional features/steps which are either part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising mathematical/mental/organizing human activity process steps (Claims 2,5, and 8-21) or adding additional elements/steps that are not meaningful as they are recited in generality and/or not qualified as particular machine/ and/or eligible transformation and, therefore, do not reflect a practical application as well as not qualified for “significantly more” based on prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 5, and 8-21 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
With regards to disclosing “In this case, the Applicant's invention is directed to providing improvements in the functioning of a facility or plant. More particularly, the present invention allows a user to selectively generate a learning model associated with a particular piece of equipment and, in embodiments, select specific sensors associated with the piece of equipment for which the model is generated”.
The Applicant did not present any specific features in the limitations that identified “improvements in the functioning of a facility or plant”.
As discussed above, improvements in the abstract idea are not qualified improvements to demonstrate a practical application.
With regards to disclosing, “In any case, no claim is made to mathematical concepts in the abstract. The usage of a mathematical concept (e.g., a mathematical formula) in software does not make an otherwise patent-eligible machine or process patent ineligible. See, for example, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981); and Example 451 of the 2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”
The Examiner disagrees and submits that, according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I, “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ”…(mathematical concepts).
With regards to disclosing, “Even assuming the claims don't pass the test of Step 2A, Prong 1, Applicant submits that it passes the test of Step 2A, prong 2 because the claimed subject matter is integrated into a practical application. The claims are applied in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims, when considered as a whole, transform the alleged abstraction into a practical application, demonstrably improving how equipment is monitored within a facility or plant.”
The Examiner disagrees and submits that “the alleged abstraction into a practical application, demonstrably improving how equipment is monitored within a facility or plant” is not reflected in the amended limitations and do not demonstrate a practical application/improvements in technology.
With regards to, “To summarize, each piece of equipment in the plant is outfitted with one or more sensors. These sensors continuously collect and, for example, wirelessly transmit up-to-date measurement data at predetermined intervals (such as every second, minute, or hour) related to specific aspects of the equipment in the plant. A gateway gathers this data from the sensors and relays it to a monitoring apparatus over a network.“
The Examiner disagrees and submits that the amended limitations such as the device, device components, are not meaningful because they are generically recited and therefore do not demonstrate a practical application.
With regards, “The monitoring apparatus employs a model to assess the state of each piece of equipment in the plant based on the sensor data. This state value may include diagnostic information, such as an indication of the equipment's condition or degree of normality or abnormality (see Applicant's specification, paragraph [0028]). Importantly, the model can utilize machine learning techniques. For instance, supervised learning may be employed, where each training sample is labeled as "normal," "abnormal," or another relevant category. The learning instruction input unit (245) can, through a learning designation screen, indicate periods when a target piece of equipment operated normally or abnormally, assigning the corresponding label to each training sample (see Applicant's specification, paragraph [0075]). “
The Examiner disagrees and submits that the Applicant’s recent amended limitations do not include “…the equipment's condition or degree of normality or abnormality”.
With regards to, “Consequently, the model delivers more precise and dependable monitoring and diagnostic capabilities for equipment operating within the facility or plant. Thus, the invention moves beyond a mere abstraction and demonstrates a tangible, practical application.
The Examiner disagrees and submits that, “The Examiner disagrees and submits that “the model delivers more precise and dependable monitoring and diagnostic capabilities for equipment operating within the facility or plant”, ” is part of the abstract idea steps and it is not used to demonstrate a practical application/improvements in technology..
35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks, filed 09/26/2025, with respect to claim 1-2, 5, and 8-21 has been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. The 35 USC §103 rejections of claims 1-2, 5, and 8-21 have been withdrawn.
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 extension fee 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.
/SHARAH ZAAB/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/LISA M CAPUTO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2863