DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 06/13/2025.
2. Claims 7 and 8 have been added.
3. Claims 1-8 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed on 06/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, the Applicant argues in substance that:
In regard to 101 rejection, the Applicant has provided arguments, “… Amended claim 1 encompasses computer-based applications for making adjustments relating to cells of a device based on a series of process determining and failure estimating operations. Therefore, this computer- dependent process provides a clear technical solution to the technical problem of interpreting machine part data and automatically making adjustments to the device, and thus is incapable of being practically performed in the human mind as required by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III(A). Thus, amended independent claim 1 cannot be classified as an abstract idea. For this reason, Applicant respectfully requests that the § 101 rejection be withdrawn..” (page 7-10).
In response to argument:
a) In Response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Foremost, the decision of the Supreme Court in regard to Alice vs CLS Bank is succinctly discussed as follows. In their decision, Supreme Court has stated that the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract ideas (such as algorithms) into a patent eligible invention. Because the algorithm was an abstract idea, the claim had to supply a “new and useful" application of the idea in order to be patent eligible (Alice, Page 12). Furthermore, the additional limitations had to be significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself (Alice, page 7, 15).
Regarding independent Claim 1, we recognize that the limitations “performs matching of the operating information acquired by the collection unit with matching data obtained by modeling the operating information acquired from the device when the device is in each of the processes, and determines process information concerning the process which the device is executing,… retrieve sales information that is associated with the operation information; perform machine learning on the operation information and the sales information; and estimate a failure prediction for the device, based on the performing of the machine learning; and …adjusts a budget relating to an operation of at least one cell of the device based on the determined process information and the estimated failure prediction”, as abstract ideas. The abstract idea of claim 1 can be characterized as processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes and/or mathematical concepts.
Beyond the abstract idea, we next look at additional elements that can be considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In particular, the claim limitations “a collector that acquires, from a device which executes a series of processes, operating information about the device in a time-series manner, and a process determinator, a predictor, and a computator” are additional elements, but said limitations are recited at a high level of generality
and are considered to be insignificant data gathering step using a generic computer components, and therefore merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activities (See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity”). As shown in the prior art, US 2020/0061768 (hereinafter, Morita), ([0054]-[0055], Figs. 1, 6), and Goto et al. US 2018/0373233 (hereinafter, Goto), (Figs. 1, 7), both show that “a collector that acquires, from a device which executes a series of processes, operating information about the device in a time-series manner, and a process determinator, a predictor, and a computator,” are well-understood and purely conventional in the relevant art and would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the abstract idea(s) and/or activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, without providing specific type of device executing specific series of processes, and/or no specific operating information about the device being recited. As it is well known to one ordinary skill in the art, the device executing a series of processes may cover vast categories of device processes. As such, the claim(s) as a whole does/do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The present claim attempts to monopolize the recited mental processes across a wide range of different technologies, rather than just for a particular practical application dealing with specific features of device executing specific processes. Accordingly, these additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these element do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does 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 do not amount to “significantly more” than the identified abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
In addition, in response to Applicant’s argument that “this computer- dependent process provides a clear technical solution to the technical problem of interpreting machine part data and automatically making adjustments to the device, and thus is incapable of being practically performed in the human mind”, Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim merely recites adjusting a budget related to an operation of the device. The claim does 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 combination of these additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to “significantly more” than the identified abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground rejection necessitate by applicant amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 1 recites:
A device state monitoring system comprising:
a collector that acquires, from a device which executes a series of processes, operating information about the device in a time-series manner;
a process determinator that performs matching of the operating information acquired by the collector with matching data obtained by modeling the operating information acquired from the device during each of the processes, and
determines process information concerning the process which the device is executing;
a predictor that is configured to:
retrieve sales information that is associated with the operation information;
perform machine learning on the operation information and the sales information; and
estimate a failure prediction for the device, based on the performing of the machine learning; and
a computator that adjusts a budget relating to an operation of at least one cell of the device based on the determined process information and the estimated failure prediction.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The limitations of “performs matching of the operating information acquired by the collection unit with matching data obtained by modeling the operating information acquired from the device when the device is in each of the processes, and determines process information concerning the process which the device is executing,… retrieve sales information that is associated with the operation information; perform machine learning on the operation information and the sales information; and estimate a failure prediction for the device, based on the performing of the machine learning; and …adjusts a budget relating to an operation of at least one cell of the device based on the determined process information and the estimated failure prediction” as drafted, are processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes and/or mathematical concepts. As stated in the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility: In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim limitations “a collector that acquires, from a device which executes a series of processes, operating information about the device in a time-series manner, and a process determinator, a predictor, and a computator” recited broadly and could also be considered as additional elements. However, they are recited at a high level of generality, and therefore merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activities (See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity”). As shown in the prior art, US 2020/0061768 (hereinafter, Morita), ([0054]-[0055], Figs. 1, 6), and Goto et al. US 2018/0373233 (hereinafter, Goto), (Figs. 1, 7), both show that “a collector that acquires, from a device which executes a series of processes, operating information about the device in a time-series manner, and a process determinator, a predictor, and a computator,” are well-understood and purely conventional in the relevant art and would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the abstract idea(s) and/or activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Accordingly, these additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 of a collector that acquires, from a device which executes a series of processes, operating information about the device in a time-series manner, and a process determinator, a predictor, and a computator are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. The combination of elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to “significantly more” than the identified abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 7, recites addition elements of “an orderer that automatically orders a replacement for the device, based on the failure prediction”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer structures performing a generic computer functions of processing and transmitting information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. As shown in the prior art, Morita, ([0067], [0188]), and Damera Venkata et al. US 2022/0058099 (hereinafter, Damera Venkata), ([0010], [0014]), both show that an orderer that automatically orders a replacement for the device, based on the failure prediction, is well-understood and purely conventional in the relevant art and would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the abstract idea(s) and/or activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 8, the limitations of “calculate a first operation cost associated with a component of the device; compare the first operation cost with a second operation cost associated with an alternative component of the device” as drafted, are processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes and/or mathematical concepts.
Further, the claim recites addition element of “provide a recommendation based on a result of the comparison.” However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer structures performing a generic computer functions of processing, transmitting, and/or displaying information) such that it may amount to no more than a recommendation or message concerning a device, which is simply extra-solution output of results using a generic computer components. As shown in the prior art, Morita, ([0015], [0188]), and Damera Venkata, ([0016], [0055]), both show that provide a recommendation based on a result of the comparison, is well-understood and purely conventional in the relevant art and would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the abstract idea(s) and/or activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
9. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. US 2020/0061768 (hereinafter, Morita), in view of Goto et al. US 2018/0373233 (hereinafter, Goto), in further view of Damera Venkata et al. US 2022/0058099 (hereinafter, Damera Venkata).
10. Regarding claim 1, Morita discloses a device state monitoring system comprising:
a collector that acquires, from a device which executes a series of processes, operating information about the device in a time-series manner ([0055], [0071]-[0072], and Figs. 5, 18);
a process determinator that performs matching of the operating information acquired by the collector with matching data obtained by modeling the operating information acquired from the device during each of the processes, and
determines process information concerning the process which the device is executing ([0185], [0188], [0190], Figs. 5, 13, 18-21);
a predictor that is configured to:
estimate a failure prediction for the device, based on [a] machine learning [0098], [0188]-[189]).
Morita does not disclose:
retrieve sales information that is associated with the operation information; perform machine learning on the operation information and the sales information; and estimate a failure prediction for the device, based on the performing of the machine learning; and a computator that adjusts a budget relating to an operation of at least one cell of the device based on the determined process information and the estimated failure prediction.
However, Goto discloses:
retrieve sales information that is associated with the operation information; perform machine learning on the operation information and the sales information; and estimate a failure prediction for the device, based on the performing of the machine learning ([0008], [0010], [0034], Figs. 1, 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Morita to use retrieve sales information that is associated with the operation information; perform machine learning on the operation information and the sales information; and estimate a failure prediction for the device, based on the performing of the machine learning as taught by Goto. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to predict failure of a device accurately (Goto, [0010]).
Morita in view of Goto does not disclose:
a computator that adjusts a budget relating to an operation of at least one cell of the device based on the determined process information and the estimated failure prediction.
However, Damera Venkata discloses:
a computator that adjusts a budget relating to an operation of at least one cell of the device based on the determined process information and the estimated failure prediction ([0010]-[0011], [0016]-[0020], [0050]-[0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Morita in view of Goto to use a computator that adjusts a budget relating to an operation of at least one cell of the device based on the determined process information and the estimated failure prediction as taught by Damera Venkata. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to apply the adjusting budget methodology of a device as known in the art and as taught by Damera Venkata in a machine tool of such as that of Morita and Goto, thereby, enabling downstream cost saving by allowing a planned response to a device's health degradations (Damera Venkata, [0010]).
11. Regarding claim 2, Morita in view of Goto in view of Damera Venkata discloses the device state monitoring system according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Morita further discloses wherein the device includes a plurality of operating elements capable of taking a predetermined state, wherein the operating information includes element information representing whether the predetermined state is established in each of the operating elements, and wherein the matching data is data obtained by modeling a pattern of the element information included in the operating information ([0185]-[0190], Figs. 5, 18, 19). See also Goto (Fig. 4).
12. Regarding claim 3, Morita in view of Goto in view of Damera Venkata disclose the device state monitoring system according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Morita further discloses wherein the process includes a main operation which the device performs and an operation which occurs concomitantly with the main operation (Figs. 5, 11-13, 18, 21). See also Goto (Fig. 4).
13. Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 3.
14. Regarding claim 4, Morita in view of Goto in view of Damera Venkata disclose the device state monitoring system according to claim 3, as disclosed above.
Morita further discloses wherein the main operation includes a processing operation for directly producing a processed product by the device, and the operation which occurs concomitantly with the main operation includes a troubleshooting operation (Figs. 5, 11-13, 18, 21: discloses a plurality of processing operations. Morita in view of Goto in view of Damera Venkata does not disclose a main operation include set-up change operation, a subsequent operation, waiting. However, the main operation include set-up change operation, a subsequent operation, waiting would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Morita in view of Goto in view of Damera Venkata as disclosed above). See also Goto (Fig. 4).
15. Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 4.
16. Regarding claim 7, Morita in view of Goto in view of Damera Venkata disclose the device state monitoring system according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Morita further discloses an orderer that automatically orders a replacement for the device, based on the failure prediction ([0067], [0188]).
17. Regarding claim 8, Morita in view of Goto in view of Damera Venkata disclose the device state monitoring system according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Morita further discloses compare the first operation with a second operation and provide a recommendation based on a result of the comparison ([0067], [0188]). Further, Goto discloses predicting failure of a component ([0010]).
Morita in view of Goto does not disclose:
calculate a first operation cost associated with a component of the device; compare the first operation cost with a second operation cost associated with an alternative component of the device; and provide a recommendation based on a result of the comparison.
However, Damera Venkata discloses:
“a health monitoring device may employ various machine learning techniques to intelligently detect a probable failure condition for the device being monitored by the health monitoring device. The health monitoring device may enable downstream cost saving by allowing a planned response to a device's health degradations… the performance evaluator may further compute a saving factor based at least on the average failure condition gap computed for the plurality of devices and cost parameters. In one example, the cost parameters may include a device cost, a repair cost, and an average lifetime value of the devices. the device…The performance evaluator may further compare the saving factor with a threshold to ascertain whether the health monitoring device may be continued to be used or discontinued. The performance evaluator may accordingly render a notification recommending either continuance or discontinuance of the usage of the health monitoring device based on the saving factor” ([0010], [0013], [0016], [0050]-[0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Morita in view of Goto to use calculate a first operation cost associated with a component of the device; compare the first operation cost with a second operation cost associated with an alternative component of the device; and provide a recommendation based on a result of the comparison as taught by Damera Venkata. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to apply the comparing operation cost methodology of a device as known in the art and as taught by Damera Venkata in a machine tool of such as that of Morita and Goto, thereby, enabling downstream cost saving by allowing a planned response to a device's health degradations (Damera Venkata, [0010]).
Conclusion
18. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
19. 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 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 date of this final action.
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857