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 .
The following action is in response to the preliminary amendment of 02/07/2023.
By the amendment, claims 1-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites the limitation "the probabilities of the root causes or solutions" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites the limitation "the associated medical imaging device" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims 1, 8 and 18:
Step 1, MPEP 2106.03:
These limitations have been determined, under Step 1, to be statutory categories of invention:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing [..] (claim 1)
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions [..] (claim 8)
A service device, comprising: [..] at least one electronic processor; [..] (claim 18)
Step 2A Prong One MPEP 2106.04, 2106.04(a):
These limitations represent, under Step 2A Prong One, mental processes such as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid, including observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), for example a user can create and update, using pen and paper for example, a tree with nodes and edges and label them based on logic and a log of data and make iterative recommendations based on observed outcomes:
[..] a fault finding tree comprising nodes and edges, wherein the nodes include terminal nodes labeled with root causes or solutions and occurrence rates for the root causes or solutions and the edges include action edges labeled with actions and time-to-complete values for the actions; [..] (claims 1 and 18)
[..] perform an iterative method for recommending actions for a fault-finding task using the fault finding tree wherein an iteration of the iterative method has an associated set of reachable action edges and reachable terminal nodes; [..] (claims 1 and 18)
[..] determining at least one recommended next action from the actions labeled to the reachable action edges based on the computed expected times [..] (claims 1 and 18)
[..]determining a set of reachable action edges and reachable terminal nodes for a next iteration of the iterative method based on the received outcome observation. (claims 1 and 18)
[..] converting a collection of historical fault-finding process sequences into a fault-finding tree having nodes, action edges and outcome edges connecting the nodes, wherein the action edges are labeled with actions of the historical fault-finding process sequences and the outcome edges are labeled with outcomes of the historical fault-finding process sequences, the nodes including terminal nodes labeled with root causes or solutions identified by the historical fault-finding process sequences; [..] claim 8)
These limitations represent, under Step 2A Prong One, mathematical concepts such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I):
[..] computing expected times to resolve the fault-finding task for different sequences of the reachable action edges using the time-to-complete values of actions associated with the reachable action edges and the occurrence rates for the reachable terminal nodes; [..] (claims 1 and 18)
Step 2A Prong Two, MPEP 2106.04(d):
These limitations represent, under Step 2A Prong Two, mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computing tools, MPEP 2106.05(f):
[..] instructions readable and executable by at least one electronic processor to perform an iterative method for recommending actions for a fault-finding task using the fault finding tree: [..] (claims 1 and 18)
[..] instructions executable by at least one electronic processor to perform a method of generating a recommendation engine for recommending actions during performance of a fault-finding task [..] (claim 8)
[..] a user interface (UI) on a service device operable by a field service engineer (FSE). (claim 8)
These limitations represent, under Step 2A Prong Two, mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05:
[..] displaying the at least one recommended next action; [..] (claims 1 and 18)
[..] receiving an outcome observation for an action performed by a user; [..] (claims 1 and 18)
[..] providing a visualization of the fault-finding tree on a user interface (UI)[..] (claim 8)
Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05:
These limitations are considered, under Step 2B, insignificant extra-solution activity as being recited at a high level of generality, MPEP 2106.05(d):
[..] instructions readable and executable by at least one electronic processor to perform an iterative method for recommending actions for a fault-finding task using the fault finding tree: [..] (claims 1 and 18)
[..] instructions executable by at least one electronic processor to perform a method of generating a recommendation engine for recommending actions during performance of a fault-finding task [..] (claim 8)
[..] a user interface (UI) on a service device operable by a field service engineer (FSE). (claim 8)
These limitations are considered, under Step 2B, insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering input/output over a network, MPEP 2106.05(g):
[..] displaying the at least one recommended next action; [..] (claims 1 and 18)
[..] receiving an outcome observation for an action performed by a user; [..] (claims 1 and 18)
[..] providing a visualization of the fault-finding tree on a user interface (UI)[..] (claim 8)
Regarding dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9, 11-12 16 and 20, these dependent claims recite limitations that represent the abstract ideas of mental processes (claims 5-7, 9, 11, 16), mathematical calculations (claims 2-3, 12, 19-20) or both mental processes and mathematical calculations (claim 11). In each case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim fails to include language sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding dependent claims 4, 13-15 and 17, these dependent claims recite limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception of their respective parent claims into a practical application because each claim fails to include language sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubyak et al., US 2018/0373785 A1 published 12/27/2018 (“DUBYAK”) in view Qureshi et al., US 8,001,527 B1 published 04/16/2011 (“QURESHI”).
Regarding claim 8, DUBYAK discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by at least one electronic processor to perform a method of generating a recommendation engine for recommending actions during performance of a fault-finding task (¶3, ¶15), the method comprising:
converting a collection of historical fault-finding process sequences into a fault-finding tree having nodes (¶45-57: extract functional relations, remedial actions, sources, causes of observed symptoms of a problem from prior documents for building a graph-based knowledge resource), action edges and outcome edges connecting the nodes (Fig. 6), wherein the action edges are labeled with actions of the historical fault-finding process sequences and the outcome edges are labeled with outcomes of the historical fault-finding process sequences (Fig. 6), ¶70: nodes and edges between the nodes, edges indicate an action “remedy” and outcome “cause”), the nodes including terminal nodes labeled with root causes or solutions identified by the historical fault-finding process sequences (Fig. 6, ¶70: nodes indicate system component states which represent root causes indicated by the outcome edges); and
providing a user interface (UI) relating to the fault-finding tree on a service device operable by a field service engineer (FSE) (Fig. 3, ¶49-67: providing recommendations UI to a pilot based on query and related to the fault-finding tree).
DUBYAK fails to explicitly disclose wherein the UI relating to the fault-finding tree is an explicit visualization of the fault-finding tree.
QURESHI discloses methods for performing root cause analysis and providing recommendations (col 1 lines 20-67). In particular, QURESHI discloses displaying a visualization of a fault-finding tree to a service operable by an end-user (col 61 lines 3-45). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the teachings of DUBYAK and QURESHI before them before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the output of a visualization of a fault-finding tree to a GUI operable by an end-user, as suggested by QURESHI, with the output of a UI related to the fault-finding tree on the service device operable by the field service engineer of DUBYAK. One would have been motivated to make this output in order to provide additional transparency when processing a recommended action, as suggested by QURESHI (col 61 lines 44-45).
Regarding claim 13, DUBYAK and QURESHI disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, and QURESHI further discloses wherein the method further includes updating the visualization (Fig. 2) by:
receiving, via one or more inputs from the FSE, a selection of an action represented by at least one terminal node (col 13 lines 19-35, col 61 lines 4-45: selection of an action plan by user);
recording an outcome of the selected action (col 13 lines 19-35: providing feedback to update the visualization).
Regarding claim 14, DUBYAK and QURESHI disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 13, and DUBYAK further discloses wherein the updating includes:
performing a natural language processing (NLP) process on text entered by the FSE to the service device, the text being indicative of the selection of the at least one terminal node (¶45-46).
Claims 10, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DUBYAK in view of QURESHI and in further view of Dugan et al., US 2011/0137703 A1 published 06/09/2011 (“DUGAN”).
Regarding claim 10, DUBYAK and QURESHI disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, and DUBYAK further discloses wherein the historical fault-finding sequences are historical fault-finding sequences performed by service engineers servicing devices (¶34, ¶45-48, ¶72: any complex technical system).
Neither DUBYAK nor QURESHI explicitly disclose wherein the devices are medical imaging devices.
DUGAN discloses methods for performing risk assessment using fault tree models (¶59-60). In particular, DUGAN discloses that risk assessment is applicable to fields with critical systems, including aerospace systems and medical devices (¶63). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the teachings of DUBYAK, QURESHI and DUGAN before them before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the application of fault tree models in risk assessment in a medical device field, as taught by DUGAN, with the application of the fault-finding tree model of the complex technical system of DUBYAK and QURESHI, yielding the predictable result of the devices of DUBYAK and QURESHI being medical imaging devices. One would have been motivated to make this combination in order to simply substitute known the known element of a complex system involving medical devices for the known element of a complex system to achieve predictable results, as suggested by DUGAN (¶63, KSR, MPEP 2143.I.B.).
Regarding claim 15, DUBYAK and QURESHI disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 13, and DUBYAK further discloses wherein the updating includes:
extracting one or more selections of actions to be performed by the FSE from a service log of the associated device (¶45-48).
Neither DUBYAK nor QURESHI explicitly disclose wherein the devices are medical imaging devices.
DUGAN discloses methods for performing risk assessment using fault tree models (¶59-60). In particular, DUGAN discloses that risk assessment is applicable to fields with critical systems, including aerospace systems and medical devices (¶63). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the teachings of DUBYAK, QURESHI and DUGAN before them before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the application of fault tree models in risk assessment in a medical device field, as taught by DUGAN, with the application of the fault-finding tree model of the complex technical system of DUBYAK and QURESHI, yielding the predictable result of the devices of DUBYAK and QURESHI being medical imaging devices. One would have been motivated to make this combination in order to simply substitute known the known element of a complex system involving medical devices for the known element of a complex system to achieve predictable results, as suggested by DUGAN (¶63, KSR, MPEP 2143.I.B.).
Regarding claim 17, DUBYAK and QURESHI disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, and QURESHI further discloses wherein the providing of the visualization includes:
displaying, on the UI, a portion of the fault-finding tree showing only root causes with probabilities reachable as a possible root cause of the maintenance of the associated device (col 61 lines 3-45, Fig. 20, col 77 lines 4-22).
Neither DUBYAK nor QURESHI explicitly disclose wherein the devices are medical imaging devices.
DUGAN discloses methods for performing risk assessment using fault tree models (¶59-60). In particular, DUGAN discloses that risk assessment is applicable to fields with critical systems, including aerospace systems and medical devices (¶63). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the teachings of DUBYAK, QURESHI and DUGAN before them before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the application of fault tree models in risk assessment in a medical device field, as taught by DUGAN, with the application of the fault-finding tree model of the complex technical system of DUBYAK and QURESHI, yielding the predictable result of the devices of DUBYAK and QURESHI being medical imaging devices. One would have been motivated to make this combination in order to simply substitute known the known element of a complex system involving medical devices for the known element of a complex system to achieve predictable results, as suggested by DUGAN (¶63, KSR, MPEP 2143.I.B.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-7, 9, 11, 16 and 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 35 USC 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sirohi; Ajay et al.
US 11188067 B2
Method and system for elimination of fault conditions in a technical installation
Halbersberg; Dan et al.
US 10061637 B1
System, method, and computer program for automatic root cause analysis
Cheriere; Vincent et al.
US 9266626 B2
Method, devices and program for computer-aided analysis of the failure tolerance of an aircraft system, using critical event charts
Basu; Julie et al.
US 20200241949 A1
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR COLLABORATIVE EVIDENCE-BASED PROBLEM INVESTIGATION AND RESOLUTION
Wenner; Jennifer et al.
US 20190228322 A1
VEHICLE REPAIR GUIDANCE SYSTEM
Lu; Xin et al.
US 20190034255 A1
ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DIAGNOSING FAULTS
Lvin; Vyacheslav et al.
US 20160179598 A1
SYSTEM AND METHOD OF VISUALIZING HISTORICAL EVENT CORRELATIONS IN A DATA CENTER
Wittliff, III; William W. et al.
US 20130185093 A1
DYNAMIC DECISION SEQUENCING METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR OPTIMIZING A DIAGNOSTIC TEST PLAN
Marvasti; Mazda A. et al.
US 20130097463 A1
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ROOT CAUSE AND CRITICAL PATTERN PREDICTION USING VIRTUAL DIRECTED GRAPHS
Argue; Paul R. et al.
US 20100169713 A1
METHOD OF CUSTOMIZING A FAULT TREE FOR AN APPLIANCE
Bock; Megan Elena et al.
US 20090113248 A1
COLLABORATIVE TROUBLESHOOTING COMPUTER SYSTEMS USING FAULT TREE ANALYSIS
Geymayr, Jose Antonio Bogarin, and Nelson Francisco Favilla Ebecken. "Fault-tree analysis: a knowledge-engineering approach." IEEE Transactions on Reliability 44.1 (1995): 37-45.
Van Den Elzen, Stef, and Jarke J. Van Wijk. "Baobabview: Interactive construction and analysis of decision trees." 2011 IEEE conference on visual analytics science and technology (VAST). IEEE, 2011.
Huang, Xinlin, Jianmin Gao, and Zhiyong Gao. "Fault root cause tracing method of large-scale complicated equipment based on fault graph." 2011 International Conference on Quality, Reliability, Risk, Maintenance, and Safety Engineering. IEEE, 2011.
Singh, Satnam, Clifton Pinion, and Halasya Siva Subramania. "Data-driven framework for detecting anomalies in field failure data." 2011 Aerospace Conference. IEEE, 2011.
Schuh, Michael, et al. "An IEEE standards-based visualization tool for knowledge discovery in maintenance event sequences." IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine 28.7 (2013): 30-39.
Strasser, Shane, and John Sheppard. "Diagnostic model maturation." IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine 28.1 (2013): 34-43.
Chang, Wui Lee, Kai Meng Tay, and Chee Peng Lim. "Clustering and visualization of failure modes using an evolving tree." Expert Systems with Applications 42.20 (2015): 7235-7244.
Solé, Marc, et al. "Survey on models and techniques for root-cause analysis." arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.08546 (2017).
Abdallah, Imad, et al. "Fault diagnosis of wind turbine structures using decision tree learning algorithms with big data." Safety and Reliability–Safe Societies in a Changing World. CRC Press, 2018. 3053-3061.
Chen, Weiwei, et al. "BIM-based framework for automatic scheduling of facility maintenance work orders." Automation in construction 91 (2018): 15-30.
Kubiak, Patrick, and Stefan Rass. "An overview of data-driven techniques for IT-service-management." IEEE Access 6 (2018): 63664-63688.
Shah, Syed Yousaf, Xuan-Hong Dang, and Petros Zerfos. "Root cause detection using dynamic dependency graphs from time series data." 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data). IEEE, 2018.
Aumayr, Erik, MingXue Wang, and Anne-Marie Bosneag. "Probabilistic knowledge-graph based workflow recommender for network management automation." 2019 IEEE 20th International Symposium on" A World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks"(WoWMoM). IEEE, 2019.
Le, Dy D., et al. "Visualization and explainable machine learning for efficient manufacturing and system operations." Smart and Sustainable Manufacturing Systems 3.2 (2019): 127-147.
Mulvey, David, et al. "Cell fault management using machine learning techniques." IEEE access 7 (2019): 124514-124539.
Angelopoulos, Angelos, et al. "Tackling faults in the industry 4.0 era—a survey of machine-learning solutions and key aspects." Sensors 20.1 (2019): 109.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW L TANK whose telephone number is (571)270-1692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9a-6p.
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, Matthew Ell can be reached at 571-270-3264. 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.
/ANDREW L TANK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2141