DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a device claim. Likewise, claim 14 is a method claim.
Under step 2A, prong 1: claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. “mathematical relationships” which the court has identified as abstract) without significantly more. Claims 1 and 14 are directed to the abstract idea of determine whether the actual sensor data point is an outlier and mark it accordingly, determine whether the actual data point represents a discontinuity, determine a slope by a regression model of a slope equation of a straight line in time fitted to at least a predefined first number of subsequently obtained sensor data points, and determine whether the actual sensor data point belongs to the learned regression model, if the actual sensor data point does not belong to the learned regression model, determine a new slope by learning a new regression model based on the actual data point and a predefined second number of preceding sensor data points, and create a segment comprising all sensor data points of one learned regression model. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are obtaining an actual sensor data point; which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and display each sensor data point of the time series of sensor data points indicating the determined segment or being an outlier, wherein the segment of subsequent data points belonging to one learned regression model indicates a gradually developing physical process and the segment is assigned to the physical process of the technical system, and wherein the segment indicates anomalous behavior of the technical system that precedes failure, thereby protecting the technical system from damage and failure by enabling an operator of the technical system to take timely counter-measures to prevent further harm to the technical system, which is an extra solution activity such as outputting data (i.e. displaying data). Further additional elements are: an analysis unit, sensors, a monitoring device and a display unit, which are conventional or generic equipment which do not add anything significant to the judicial exception because these instruments are needed in order to process and display the sensor data. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed device/method. For instance, nothing is done with the displayed sensor data points.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity. Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Dependent claims 2-13 and 15-17 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the abstract steps of claims 1 and 14 respectively, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under step 2A Prong and that that “it protects the technical system by enabling timely counter-measures”
In response the Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to the fact that the new amendments merely describe the data that’s being outputted by the system, and therefore fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The system does not protect the device but merely alerts an operator to take timely counter measures to prevent further harm to the system. Therefore the claim fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
Applicant argues that the claims now "indicates a gradually developing physical process," "is assigned to the physical process of the technical system," "indicates anomalous behavior of the technical system that precedes failure," and now expressly recites the concrete technical end of "thereby protecting the technical system from damage and failure by enabling an operator of the technical system to take timely counter-measures to prevent further harm to the technical system." This chain of recitations ties the segmentation directly to a specific, practical application (i.e. protecting a monitored technical system from damage and failure) rather than leaving the output unused.
In response the Examiner points to the fact that displaying data does not constitute to protecting the system but merely a way to notify an operator of how the system is operating.
Applicant argues that the claims are geared towards technological improvements which include monitoring for the purpose of providing preventive maintenance and anomaly detection, hence protecting industrial systems from damage and failure.
In response to the claimed language providing an improvement to the technology; the Examiner points out that the claimed language does not reflect the alleged improvement to the technology 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 the abstract idea.
Further, it is noted that the claims don’t even tie the claims to a specific technology or field of use. The claims merely describe a “technical system” with “sensors” where data is being acquired and processed mathematically (i.e. iteratively or regression modeled). The description of outputted data is not an improvement to the technology.
Applicant argues that the claim ties the segmentation to detecting specific physical processes of the technical system that indicate anomalous behavior preceding failure. Therefore providing a technical benefit since performing visual inspection of the sensor time series are error prone and does not allow for handling of large amounts of data and not capable of spotting complex non-linear patterns.
In response the Examiner points out that the amendments merely describe the data that’s being outputted by the system and alerting an operator, and therefore fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is tied to a concrete technical application such as monitoring technical system (pumps).
In response there’s no mention in the claim that the technical system is geared towards pump monitoring and therefore the claims are geared towards any generic field of use.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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 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.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights