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 .
This action is responsive to communication filed on 06/04/2026. Claims 1-13 are pending. Claims 14 and 21-23 have been cancelled. Claims 15-16, and 18-19 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 24-26 are new. Claims 1-2, 5, and 13 have been amended. Entry of this amendment is accepted and made of record.
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 1-13 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1, belongs to a statutory category, namely a method. Likely claim 13 , belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a system.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim(s) 1, and 13 recite(s) concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for “ obtaining a correlation model corresponding to the target device, wherein the correlation model is generated by a model training process including…, wherein the first sample measurement data relating to the one or more first operating parameters is used as an input, and the first sample measurement data relating to the one or more second operating parameters is used as a training ground truth; training a preliminary correlation model using the plurality of first training samples to generate the correlation model; and predicting, second measurement data relating to the one or more second operating parameters of the target device by inputting the first measurement data into the correlation model”.
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe at least one of mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “system for device monitoring comprising:… at least one processor configured to communicate with the at least one storage device” recited by claims 13, amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; the recitation of “obtaining first measurement data relating to one or more first operating parameters of the target device ”, “obtaining a plurality of first training samples, each of the plurality of first training samples includes first sample measurement data relating to the one or more first operating parameters and first sample measurement data relating to one or more second operating parameters of a reference device”, “one or more additional sensors compared with the target device, the one or more additional sensors being configured for collecting the first sample measurement data relating to the one or more second operating parameters” recited by claims 1 and 13, is mere gathering recited at high level of generality and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored (i.e. storage device including a set of instructions) as part of insignificant post-solution activity and are not used in any particular manner as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer “system for device monitoring comprising…at least one processor…” (claim 13), used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 1, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 24-26 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claims 1 and 13.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 24-26 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and mere characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea i.e. modifying, based on the environment data and a first environment model, the second measurement data (claims 2), “modifying, based on the environment data and a first environment model, the second measurement data comprises: selecting, from the plurality of association rules, a target association rule corresponding to an environment of the target device; modifying, based on the first measurement data and the target association rule, the second measurement data” (claims 3), “selecting, from a plurality of candidate correlation models each of which corresponds to one of a plurality of types of environment, the correlation model based on the environment data” (claims 4), “wherein the predicting, second measurement data relating to the one or more second operating parameters of the target device comprises: … predicting the second measurement data by inputting the first measurement data and the environment data into the correlation model, the correlation model being generated based on sample environment data of the reference device” (claim 5), “assessing an operating state of the target device based on the first measurement data and the second measurement data” (claim 6), “assessing an operating state of the target device based on the first measurement data and the second measurement data further comprising: determining, based on the first measurement data and the second measurement data, an assessment score of the operating state of the target device using a performance evaluation model” (claim 7), “modifying, based on environment data, the assessment score using a second environment model” (claim 8), “sample assessment score being determined based on sample image data collected by the reference device under the second sample measurement data; and generating the performance evaluation model by training a preliminary performance evaluation model using the plurality of training samples” (claim 9), “he performance evaluation model includes a performance degradation evaluation model” (claim 10), “obtaining an operating parameter determination model corresponding to the target device; and determining one or more parameter values of the one or more first operating parameters and the one or more second operating parameters to be used by the target device at a future time based on the first measurement data, the second measurement data, and the operating parameter determination model” (claim 11), “wherein the one or more parameter values of the one or more first operating parameters and the one or more second operating parameters to be used by the target device are determined further based on the environment data” (claim 12) and mere characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea i.e. “herein the first environment model includes a plurality of association rules between the one or more first operating parameters and the one or more second operating parameters, each of the plurality of association rules corresponding to one of a plurality of types of environment” (claims 3), “each of the plurality of training samples including second sample measurement data of the reference device and a sample assessment score of an operating state of the reference device” (claim 9), “determining a performance degradation score…; generating an operation and maintenance instruction for the target device based on the performance degradation score… modifying at least one of the oner or more first operating parameters and the one or more second operating parameters of the target device” (claim 26) and data characterization (claims 24- 25).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application in claims 2-12 and 24-26 because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device; and because the recitation of “obtaining environment data of the target device, wherein the environment data of the target device is collected by one or more environment sensors mounted in an environment around the target device” recited in claims 2, “obtaining environment data of the target device” recited in claims 4, and 5, “obtaining a plurality of training samples, each of the plurality of training samples including second sample measurement data of the reference device and a sample assessment score of an operating state of the reference device” (claim 9), “obtaining environment data of the target device” (claim 12), “the first measurement data is collected by one or more first sensors mounted on the target device…” (claim 24) amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, the limitations merely add further details as to the type of data, the means of collecting data being received/input/stored (memory) and used with the mental process and/or math steps recited in the independent claims, also further calculations and math, so they are properly viewed as part of the recited abstract idea; and the results are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
The claim(s) claims 2-12 and 24-26 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore claims 1-13 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 112(b) with respect to amended claims 1-13 and 21-23, have been fully considered and are persuasive. In view of the amendments the 35 USC 112(b) rejections made to claims 1-13 and 21-23 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to rejections made to claims 1-13 and 21-23 under 35 USC 101 filed 06/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 made to claims 1-13 and 21-23 that the claimed invention as amended does not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 PEG (see las paragraph on page 12 of the remarks) and that under Step 2A Prong One the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea. (see second paragraph on page 13 of the remarks) and traverses the assertion under 2A of MPEP 2106 that claims 1 and 13 recite concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind (see third paragraph on page 13 of the remarks).
In response the examiner disagrees and submits that as amended the claims recite concepts directed to an abstract idea as claims 1 and 13 recite concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for “ obtaining a correlation model corresponding to the target device, wherein the correlation model is generated by a model training process including…, wherein the first sample measurement data relating to the one or more first operating parameters is used as an input, and the first sample measurement data relating to the one or more second operating parameters is used as a training ground truth; training a preliminary correlation model using the plurality of first training samples to generate the correlation model; and predicting, second measurement data relating to the one or more second operating parameters of the target device by inputting the first measurement data into the correlation model”.
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe at least one of mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. It is noted that the obtaining correlation model, training a preliminary correlation model, and predicting steps recited by the claims is merely correlating measurement data relating to one or more first operating parameters corresponding to a target device in which a first sample measurement data relating to one or more first operating parameters is used as an input and a first sample measurement data relating to the one or more second operating parameters is used as a training ground truth, which is a reference value, and a such it is describing mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results from answers and which describes mental processes, namely concepts that can be performed in the human mind or by pen and paper (i.e. predicting) for which a trained preliminary correlation model is used as a tool to implement the judicial exception.
Although the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Applicant submits that as amended claim 1 recites a method for device monitoring and that the features of amended claim 1 are not abstract, particularly when compared to Example 39 of Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract ideas issued on January 7, 2019 (see last paragraph on page 13 of the remarks). Applicant further submits that similar to Example 39 the current claim 1 does not recite any mathematical relationships, form idea and calculations, the claim does not recite a mental process because the steps cannot be practically performed in the human mind; and because the steps do not recite any method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people and therefore the steps stated above is not directed to an abstract idea, and is thus patent eligible. (see first paragraph on page 14 of the remarks).
In response the examiner submits that as discussed above the claims recite concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion.
It is noted that the claims of Example 39, are directed towards facial detection for identifying human faces in digital images in which neural network is used and more specifically the claim language uses a combination of features to more robustly detect human faces. Note that although mathematical transformation functions are applied on acquired set of facial images, the neural networks are trained with an expanded training set using stochastic learning with backpropagation and minimizing false positives by performing iterative training algorithm, in which the system is retrained with an updated training set containing false positives produced after face detection and that the combination of features provides a robust detection model that can detect faces in distorted images while limiting the number of false positives (improvement), the combination of elements provides an improvement of the technology.
Contrary to Example 39, instant application claims as discussed above does recite a judicial exception and does not disclose additional elements that can be considered and improvement over the prior art as the additional claim elements is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generic computer used to execute the abstract idea and because the results are merely output and not used in a particular manner as to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to improve the technology or technical field as to amount to significantly more and therefore the claims stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant argues that the Office Action fails to satisfy the “Integrated into a Practical Application” inquiry of Step 2A-Prong 2 (see last paragraph on page 14 of the remarks), and submits that Amended claim 1 is directed to subject matter that is integrated into a practical application that is an essential part of device monitoring, and that the claimed method solves a real-world problem: a target device lacks sensors for certain operating parameters (i.e., the claimed second operation parameters), by training a correlation model using a reference device’s sample data (including directly measured second operating parameters as ground truth), and then applying that model to first measurement data from the target device, the method predicts the missing second measurement data, which enables full device monitoring without hardware modifications. Applicant submits that the practical use is specific and concrete: the predicted data can be immediately acted upon by a monitoring system to improve device uptime and safety and that the integration is clear view of the guidance provided by the USPTO and that the claims are integrated into a practical application, making the claimed invention patentable subject matter (see penultimate and last0 paragraphs on page 15 of the remarks).
In response, the examiner disagrees and submits that the claimed language do not reflect the alleged improvement to the operation of the computer, technology or technological field and that the combination of steps cannot be considered to provide an inventive concept and the alleged improvements mentioned is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) and as such is not indicative of a practical application of abstract idea; and the alleged improvement applicant relies upon is part of the abstract idea The examiner further submits that an improvement to the abstract ideas discussed above does not amount to an improvement to technology or a technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II) stating “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”). There is no indication in the instant disclosure that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology for the outlined problem statement. The instant application and claim language fail to detail how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.
Applicant argues that Step 2B is also flawed and that the claims provide an inventive concept. Applicant submits that even assuming arguendo that the pending claims are directed to an abstract idea, which applicant does not concede, the Office action fails to satisfy the “significantly more inquiry” of Step 2B and that even if amended claim 1 is drawn to an abstract idea, which it is not, the rejection is improper because amended claim 1 recites elements that qualify as “significantly more” under at least these considerations endorsed by MPEP 2106.05(see first two paragraph of page 16 of the remarks). Applicant further submits that the claimed invention meets the improvements to another technology requirement since it provides a specific improvement over device monitoring by predicting the second measurement data relating to the one or more second operating parameters of the target device that could not collected by one or more sensors equipped on the target device, resulting in more comprehensive monitoring of the target device (see last paragraph on page 16 of the remarks).
In response the examiner disagrees and submits that the additional claim limitations recited by the instant application claims do not reflect an improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement to any other technology or technical field, applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine or adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application as discussed above. The alleged improvements mentioned is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) and as such is not indicative of a practical application of abstract idea.
With respect to claims 13, 2-12 and 21-23 applicant have presented similar arguments to those with respect to independent claim 1 (see second and third paragraphs on page 17 of the remarks).
In response, the examiner disagrees, for similar reasons with respect to claim 1 discussed above.
Therefore, the claims 1-13 and 24-26 stand rejected under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/YARITZA H. PEREZ BERMUDEZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/JORDAN L JACKSON/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights