DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 10 March 2026. Claims 1-5 have been amended. Claims 1-5 are pending in this application.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pg. 6, filed 10 March 2026 with respect to the Applicant’s statement “It is evident that the Examiner's indication in item 1 at page 2 of the Office Action dated December 10, 2025 that the Office Action is a "Final Office Action" is a typographical issue in the Office Action because a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) was filed in this application on October 24, 2025.” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner acknowledges the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 10 March 2026 included the typographical error of “a Final Office Action” in paragraph 1 on pg. 1 (i.e. “a Final Office Action” should have read “a Non-Final Office Action”).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 6-7, filed 10 March 2026, with respect to objected claims 1, 4, and 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 10 March 2026. The objections of claims 1, 4, and 5 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 7, filed 10 March 2026, with respect to rejected claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 10 March 2026. The rejections of claims 2 and 3 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 7-9, filed 10 March 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument, “Applicant respectfully submits that these features are unique process features for plant monitoring.” (see Remarks, pg. 9, paragraph 2) The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2104 III. - SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY
A claimed invention must be eligible for patenting. As explained in MPEP § 2106, there are two criteria for determining subject matter eligibility: (a) first, a claimed invention must fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter; and (b) second, a claimed invention must be directed to patent-eligible subject matter and not a judicial exception (unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception). The judicial exceptions are subject matter which courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980 (2014) (citing Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 66, 70, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1979 (2013)). See also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 601, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1005-06 (2010) (citing Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309, 206 USPQ 193, 197 (1980)).
See MPEP § 2106 for a discussion of subject matter eligibility in general, and the analytical framework that is to be used during examination for evaluating whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter, MPEP § 2106.03 for a discussion of the statutory categories of invention, MPEP § 2106.04 for a discussion of the judicial exceptions, and MPEP § 2106.05 for a discussion of how to evaluate claims directed to a judicial exception for eligibility. See MPEP § 2106.07(a)(1) for form paragraphs for use in rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a lack of subject matter eligibility. See also MPEP § 2105 for more information about claiming living subject matter, as well as the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA )'s prohibition against claiming human organisms.
Eligible subject matter is further limited by the Atomic Energy Act explained in MPEP § 2104.01, which prohibits patents granted on any invention or discovery that is useful solely in the utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy in an atomic weapon.
The criteria set forth for eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 does not require the lack of disclosure or teaching of claimed subject matter in cited references per MPEP 2104 III (i.e. the lack of citing references under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 does not provide evidence that the claimed invention is eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101). Hence, the Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive.
In regards to the Applicant’s argument,
Accordingly, for at least the foregoing reasons, claim 1, especially as newly-amended in this paper, is eligible because it is integrated into a practical application and, under the USPTO's 2019 101 Guidelines, the claim should be deemed to be eligible because it is not directed to any recited judicial exception, namely an abstract idea. (see Remarks, pg. 9, paragraph 4)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant has set forth a broad and conclusionary statement asserting the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, as well as, a mere recitation of claim limitations, without providing any specific arguments/rationales/evidence as to why the newly presented limitations (i.e. “… at predetermined monitoring times, acquire …” and “display … in order of certainty on a display) are more than extra-solution activities of data gathering and outputting data that integrate abstract idea into a practical application. Hence, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s arguments,
Amended independent claims 4 and 5 each recite similar features as amended independent claim 1. Accordingly, similar remarks as set forth above with regard to claim 1 also apply to claims 4 and 5. (see Remarks, pg. 9, paragraph 5)
Claims 2-3 are patent eligible at least by virtue of their dependencies. (see Remarks, pg. 9, paragraph 5)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner refers to the above response, pg. 3, paragraph 6 - pg. 4, paragraph 7 of this Office action; and the argument herein as addressed.
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
At step 1, the recites “a plant monitoring device …”, therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “calculate a Mahalanobis distance of the acquired bundle of detection values with a unit space configured by collecting the bundle of detection values for each of the plurality of sensor values as reference”, “determine whether an operation state of the plant is normal or abnormal as to each evaluation item according to whether or not the Mahalanobis distance is within a predetermined threshold value”, “identify, in a case where the operation state of the plant is determined to be abnormal, whether at least one sensor value estimated to be a cause among the bundle of detection values is a high value abnormality, which is an abnormality caused by a high detection value, or a low value abnormality, which is an abnormality caused by a low detection value”, and “estimate, for the at least one sensor value, an abnormality cause by multiplying a matrix indicating the low value abnormality or the high value abnormality identified as to each evaluation item and a vector of which elements are larger-the-better signal-to-noise (SN) ratios for each evaluation item, and acquiring a vector of which elements are certainties of abnormality causes”.
The limitation of “calculate a Mahalanobis distance of the acquired bundle of detection values with a unit space configured by collecting the bundle of detection values for each of the plurality of sensor values as reference” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0212980 A1 (instant application): pg. 2, par. [0039]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “determine whether an operation state of the plant is normal or abnormal as to each evaluation item according to whether or not the Mahalanobis distance is within a predetermined threshold value”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of the claim encompasses an assessment of data (i.e. “the Mahalanobis distance is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0212980 A1 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0040])). (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “identify, in a case where the operation state of the plant is determined to be abnormal, whether at least one sensor value estimated to be a cause among the bundle of detection values is a high value abnormality, which is an abnormality caused by a high detection value, or a low value abnormality, which is an abnormality caused by a low detection value” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0212980 A1 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0043]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “estimate, for the at least one sensor value, an abnormality cause by multiplying a matrix indicating the low value abnormality or the high value abnormality identified as to each evaluation item and a vector of which elements are larger-the-better signal-to-noise (SN) ratios for each evaluation item, and acquiring a vector of which elements are certainties of abnormality causes” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0212980 A1 (instant application): pgs. 3-4, par. [0049]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a processor”, “at the predetermined monitoring times, acquire a bundle of detection values for each of a plurality of sensor values related to a plant”, and “display the estimated abnormality cause in order of certainty on a display”.
The limitations of “a processor” and “a display” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “a plant” is generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the Applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “at the predetermined monitoring times, acquire a bundle of detection values for each of a plurality of sensor values related to a plant” represents a mere means and action for data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “display the estimated abnormality cause in order of certainty …” represents the mere output of data. The “display(ting) is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically they represent more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “a processor” and “a display” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The additional limitation of “a plant” merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “at the predetermined monitoring times, acquire a bundle of detection values for each of a plurality of sensor values related to a plant”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “display the estimated abnormality cause in order of certainty …”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “presenting offers and gathering”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “calculate signal-to-noise (SN) ratios of the plurality of sensor values based on the bundle of detection values” and “acquire, for each of the plurality of sensor values, a value obtained by multiplying the information amount associated with the distinction between the low value abnormality and the high value abnormality, which is made for the sensor value in the failure part estimation database, by a larger-the-better signal-to-noise (SN) ratio related to the sensor value and estimates the abnormality cause based on a total of the acquired values”.
The limitation of “calculate signal-to-noise (SN) ratios of the plurality of sensor values based on the bundle of detection values” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0212980 A1 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0041]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “acquire, for each of the plurality of sensor values, a value obtained by multiplying the information amount associated with the distinction between the low value abnormality and the high value abnormality, which is made for the sensor value in the failure part estimation database, by a larger-the-better signal-to-noise (SN) ratio related to the sensor value and estimates the abnormality cause based on a total of the acquired values” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0212980 A1 (instant application): pgs. 3-4, par. [0049]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a failure part estimation database contains an information amount indicating an increase or a decrease in a probability of occurrence of an abnormality cause in association with an abnormality cause and a sensor value” and “the processor”.
The limitations of “a failure part estimation database” and “the processor” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… contains an information amount indicating an increase or a decrease in a probability of occurrence of an abnormality cause in association with an abnormality cause and a sensor value” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “contain(ing)” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “a failure part estimation database” and “the processor” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… contains an information amount indicating an increase or a decrease in a probability of occurrence of an abnormality cause in association with an abnormality cause and a sensor value”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… in a failure part estimation database, when a high value abnormality/low value abnormality occurs, a positive information amount is associated with an abnormality of which an abnormality cause is more likely to occur than usual, and a negative information amount is associated with an abnormality of which an abnormality cause is less likely to occur than usual”.
The limitation of “a failure part estimation database” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… when a high value abnormality/low value abnormality occurs, a positive information amount is associated with an abnormality of which an abnormality cause is more likely to occur than usual, and a negative information amount is associated with an abnormality of which an abnormality cause is less likely to occur than usual” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “associat(ing)” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “a failure part estimation database” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… when a high value abnormality/low value abnormality occurs, a positive information amount is associated with an abnormality of which an abnormality cause is more likely to occur than usual, and a negative information amount is associated with an abnormality of which an abnormality cause is less likely to occur than usual”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4:
Claim 4 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 5
Claim 5 represents an equivalent non-transitory storage medium claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Additionally, at step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a program for causing a computer to execute …”.
The limitation of “a program for causing a computer to execute …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “a program for causing a computer to execute …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to monitoring systems.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0410042 A1 discloses an abnormality detection device that detects an abnormality of a target device
U.S. Patent No. 12,535,389 B2 discloses a sensor unit is coupled to a machine and configured to detect anomalous behavior of the machine.
European Patent Publication No. 4 414 802 B1 discloses a sensor unit that can be equipped on machines or other devices and that efficiently and effectively detect anomalous operation.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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, 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 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117