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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/24/2026 has been entered.
Responses to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments filed 3/24/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 11 and 12 are amended, and claim 13 is canceled. Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application.
Applicant's amendments filed 3/24/2026 with respect to the interpretation of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph have been fully considered and are not persuasive, because no arguments and amendment to claim 9 have been made. Thus, the interpretation of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph has been withdrawn and the interpretation of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph has been maintained.
Applicant's argument and amendments filed 3/24/2026 with respect to
the rejection of claim 11 directed to nonstatutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claim 11 directed to nonstatutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
Applicant's argument and amendments filed 3/24/2026 with respect to
the rejection of claims 1-12 directed to a judicial exception under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10 of Applicant’s response, Applicant alleges that Claim 1 integrates any purported abstract idea into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 recites modifying the industrial system by shutting down the certain equipment, based on the generated predictive maintenance recommendations. … Claim 1 recites modifying an industrial system by shutting down certain equipment of the indust1ial system based on the determining a reference predictive signature and a corresponding threat scenario … Claim l is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. … by stating that when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s). The mental process grouping is not without limits. Examiners are reminded not to expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. … computing a risk predictive signature defining an incubation function including a first term obtained by summing elementary signatures associated with elementary initiating events cannot be performed practically in the human mind. …. determining a reference predictive signature associated with the associated risk predictive signature and characterization of the risk associated with the reference risk signature cannot practically be performed in the human mind. … Claim l does not recite any particular mathematical relationships, calculations, or formulas. … the improvements resulting from the functionality recited in Claim 1 cannot be ignored by the Office simply because the Office views them as abstract ideas.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The added limitation of “modifying the industrial system by shutting down the certain equipment, based on the generated predictive maintenance recommendations” recited in claims 1 and 12 is insignificant post-solution activity merely performed after the previous steps of mathematical calculations. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation of the modifying step is merely recited to perform the operation/function for shutting down the certain equipment, which is indicative of a generic computer function performed by a generic computer component. The limitation does not present a technical solution to a technical problem by providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field related to modifying the industrial system and/or generating the predictive maintenance recommendations. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation of “generating associated predictive maintenance recommendations relative to certain equipment of the industrial system” is indicative of a mental process by inferring the maintenance recommendations which is indicative of organizing human activity. (See MPEP 2106.04. (a)(2)). The limitation of “displaying on a screen of a user interface a threat scenario, …, the threat scenario determined beforehand and recorded in a database in association with said reference predictive signature” is an insignificant post-solution activity necessary to merely infer or indicate, and record (i.e., store), a mathematical result and/or information (a display of a threat scenario) which is performed by a generic computer function of a general computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The limitations related to “computation of a risk predictive signature …” and “determination of a reference predictive signature” are indicative of mathematical calculation based on the obtained data and using by a mathematical formula (see at least pages 4-5, 13-16 of the specification). The claims do not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts how and or with what to, for example, modify the industrial system and/or generate the predictive maintenance recommendations. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Further, the claims do not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts how/what to, for example, modify the industrial system and/or generate the predictive maintenance recommendations. The claims do not present a technical solution to a technical problem by providing an improvement to the functioning of computer, or to any other technology or technical field related to, for example, modify the industrial system and/or generate the predictive maintenance recommendations. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). The additional elements of the “processor” and the “screen of a user interface” are high level of generalities recited to merely perform a generic computer function of a generic computer component, because the claims do not recite their specific structure/features themselves configured to perform the claimed invention related to detecting and characterizing weak signals as well as do not add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims are ineligible. (See the modified rationale presented below).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a classifier” in claim 9, which are interpreted as described in Fig. 1 and its related descriptions (pages 8-9 in the instant application).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
The 35 USC 101 analysis between each element of claims and its combination is presented in the table below
Claim number and elements
Judicial exception (Step 2A Prong one)
Practical application (Step 2A Prong two)/ Significantly more (Step 2B)
Claim 1
Step 1: Yes, statutory class
Step 2A Prong two: No / Step 2B: No
A method for detecting and characterizing weak signals of risk exposure in an industrial system, a weak signal being representative of an incubation of a feared event, from industrial system data collected by at least one sensor over a given time period, the method comprising the following steps, implemented by a processor:
Step2A Prong one: Yes
“a processor” and “sensor” are high-level of generalities.
from data relating to said industrial system, collected during said time period, computation of a risk predictive signature defining an incubation function, the risk predictive signature comprising a first term obtained by summing elementary signatures associated with elementary initiating events, each elementary signature being dependent on parameters comprising a severity value of the elementary initiating event, a characteristic function of the elementary initiating event and a weighting function associated with the elementary initiating event, at least a part of said parameters being determined by implementing a neural network,
abstract idea
mathematical concept
The step of “computation of a risk predictive signature defining an incubation function …” is a mathematical calculation. (pages 4-5, 13-16 of the specification).
“a risk predictive signature” and “a first term” are mathematical factors/values which are computed by a mathematical formula. (see pages 4-5, 13-16 of the specification).
“a neural network” is a high-level of generality.
detection of the presence of at least one weak signal of risk exposure by comparing the computed risk predictive signature with predetermined reference risk signatures,
abstract idea
mathematical concept
The step of “detection … by comparing …” is mathematical calculation based on the obtained data. (see pages 4-5, 13-16 of the specification).
in the event of positive detection, determination of a reference predictive signature associated with the computed risk predictive signature and characterization of the risk associated with the reference risk signature, said characterization comprising
displaying on a screen of a user interface a threat scenario,
generating associated predictive maintenance recommendations relative to certain one equipment of the industrial system, the threat scenario determined beforehand and recorded in a database in association with said reference predictive signature, and
abstract idea
mathematical concept/mental process
The step of “determination of a reference predictive signature …” is mathematical calculation based on the obtained data. (see pages 4-5, 13-16 of the specification).
“displaying on a screen of a user interface a threat scenario” is insignificant extra-solution activity.
“generating associated predictive maintenance recommendations relative to at least one equipment of the industrial system” is a mental process.
modifying the industrial system by shutting down the certain equipment, based on the generated predictive maintenance recommendations.
“modifying … by shutting down …” is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-12 are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as addressed below and presented in the above table.
Step 2A: Prong One
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations recited in Claim 1, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations and/or the mind, as presented in the above table. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or the mathematical calculations. For example, “from data relating to said industrial system, collected during said time period, computation of a risk predictive signature defining an incubation function, the risk predictive signature comprising a first term obtained by summing elementary signatures associated with elementary initiating events, each elementary signature being dependent on parameters comprising a severity value of the elementary initiating event, a characteristic function of the elementary initiating event and a weighting function associated with the elementary initiating event, at least a part of said parameters being determined by implementing a neural network”, “detection of the presence of at least one weak signal of risk exposure by comparing the computed risk predictive signature with predetermined reference risk signatures” and “in the event of positive detection, determination of a reference predictive signature associated with the computed risk predictive signature and characterization of the risk associated with the reference risk signature, said characterization comprising a display of a threat scenario determined beforehand and recorded in association with said reference predictive signature” in the context of this claim may encompass mathematical calculations by calculating or inferring the a risk predictive signature based on the data collected by the sensor in a manner of mathematical calculations by summing elementary signatures and comparing computed risk predictive signature with predetermined reference risk signatures to thereby determine the reference predictive signature for inferring risk exposure. (See pages 4-5, 13-16 of the instant application). (See MPEP 2106.04. (a)(2)). The limitation of the “risk predictive signature”, the “first term”, “severity value”, and “elementary signatures” are indicative of mathematical factor/value/amount used in the mathematical calculation. (See pages 4-5, 13-16 of the instant application).
For example, “generating associated predictive maintenance recommendations relative to certain equipment of the industrial system” in the context of this claim may encompass a mental process by inferring the maintenance recommendations which is indicative of organizing human activity. (See MPEP 2106.04. (a)(2)).
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is abstract ideal itself and not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the specification details use of a processor to perform mathematical calculations of “from data relating to said industrial system, collected during said time period, computation of a risk predictive signature defining an incubation function, the risk predictive signature comprising a first term obtained by summing elementary signatures associated with elementary initiating events, each elementary signature being dependent on parameters comprising a severity value of the elementary initiating event, a characteristic function of the elementary initiating event and a weighting function associated with the elementary initiating event, at least a part of said parameters being determined by implementing a neural network”, “detection of the presence of at least one weak signal of risk exposure by comparing the computed risk predictive signature with predetermined reference risk signatures”, “in the event of positive detection, determination of a reference predictive signature associated with the computed risk predictive signature and characterization of the risk associated with the reference risk signature, said characterization comprising a display of a threat scenario determined beforehand and recorded in association with said reference predictive signature” and “generating associated predictive maintenance recommendations relative to certain equipment of the industrial system”. The processor, the sensor, the neural network, the screen of the user interface and the database are recited at high-level of generality to merely gather routine data (i.e., parameter) of the sensor and to perform generic computer functions of a generic computer component. The limitation of “displaying on a screen of a user interface a threat scenario, …, the threat scenario determined beforehand and recorded in a database in association with said reference predictive signature” is an insignificant post-solution activity necessary to merely infer or indicate, and record (i.e., store), a mathematical result and/or information (a display of a threat scenario) which is performed by a generic computer function of a general computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation of “modifying the industrial system by shutting down the certain equipment, based on the generated predictive maintenance recommendations” is insignificant extra-solution activity necessary to merely perform a generic computer function (i.e., shutting down certain equipment) of a general computer component, which is merely performed after the previous steps of mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation of the modifying step is merely recited to perform the operation/function for shutting down the certain equipment, which is indicative of a generic computer function performed by a generic computer component. The limitation does not present a technical solution to a technical problem by providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field related to modifying the industrial system and/or generating the predictive maintenance recommendations. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claim does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts how and or with what to, for example, modify the industrial system and/or generate the predictive maintenance recommendations. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Further, the claim does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts how/what to, for example, modify the industrial system and/or generate the predictive maintenance recommendations. The claim does not present a technical solution to a technical problem by providing an improvement to the functioning of computer, or to any other technology or technical field related to, for example, modify the industrial system and/or generate the predictive maintenance recommendations. Therefore, there is no showing of integration into a practical application such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, or use of a particular machine.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of “displaying on a screen of a user interface a threat scenario, …, the threat scenario determined beforehand and recorded in a database in association with said reference predictive signature” is insignificant post-solution activity necessary to merely perform a generic computer function of a general computer component to thereby infer and store the mathematical result. The limitation of “modifying the industrial system by shutting down the certain equipment, based on the generated predictive maintenance recommendations” is insignificant post-solution activity necessary to merely perform a generic computer function (i.e., shutting down certain equipment) of a general computer component, which is merely performed after the previous steps of mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using a processor to perform “from data relating to said industrial system, collected during said time period, computation of a risk predictive signature defining an incubation function, the risk predictive signature comprising a first term obtained by summing elementary signatures associated with elementary initiating events, each elementary signature being dependent on parameters comprising a severity value of the elementary initiating event, a characteristic function of the elementary initiating event and a weighting function associated with the elementary initiating event, at least a part of said parameters being determined by implementing a neural network”, “detection of the presence of at least one weak signal of risk exposure by comparing the computed risk predictive signature with predetermined reference risk signatures”, “in the event of positive detection, determination of a reference predictive signature associated with the computed risk predictive signature and characterization of the risk associated with the reference risk signature, said characterization comprising a display of a threat scenario determined beforehand and recorded in association with said reference predictive signature” and “generating associated predictive maintenance recommendations relative to certain equipment of the industrial system” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept cannot provide statutory eligibility. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-11, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claim 1. The limitation of “zero severity, minor severity, significant severity or severe severity” in claim 7 is indicative of mathematical factor/value/amount used in the mathematical calculation. (See pages 4-5, 13-16 of the instant application). The additional element of the classifier in claim 9 is high level of generality to merely perform a generic computer function of a generic computer component. (See page 16 of the instant application). For the reasons described above with respect to Claims 1 and 2-11, the judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 12, it is a system type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bhattacharyya et al. (US 20200285997 A2) teaches determining anomalous operation of a system includes: capturing a stream of data representing sensed (or determined) operating parameters of the system over a range of operating states, with a stability indicator representing whether the system was operating in a stable state when the operating parameters were sensed; determining statistical properties of the stream of data, including an amplitude-dependent parameter and a variance thereof over time parameter for an operating regime representing stable operation; determining a statistical norm for the statistical properties that distinguish between normal operation and anomalous operation of the system; responsive to detecting that normal and anomalous operation of the system can no longer be reliably distinguished, determining new statistical properties to distinguish between normal and anomalous system operation; and outputting a signal based on whether a concurrent stream of data representing sensed operating parameters of the system represent anomalous operation of the system.
WEGERICH et al. (EP 2015186 A2 in IDS filed 12/09/2022) teaches a system (902) for empirically diagnosing a condition of a monitored system (918). Estimates of monitored parameters (920) from a model of the system (922) provide residual values (924) that can be analyzed for failure mode signature recognition (916). Residual values can also be tested for alert (non-zero) conditions (927), and patterns of alerts (914) thus generated are analyzed for failure mode signature patterns (916), where the system (902) employs a similarity operator for signature recognition (916) and also for parameter estimation (924), where failure modes are empirically determined, and precursor data (930) is automatically analyzed to determine differentiable signatures for failure modes.
MA JIAN et al. (WO 2018009733 A1 in IDS filed 12/09/2022) teaches computer methods and systems that build and deploy a pattern model to detect an operating event in an online plant process, where to build the pattern model, the methods and systems define a signature of the operating event, such that the defined signature contains a time series pattern for a KPI associated with the operating event, the methods and systems deploy the pattern model to automatically monitor, during online execution of the plant process, trends in movement of the KPI as a time series, the methods and systems determine, in real-time, a distance score between a range of the monitored time series and the time series pattern contained in the defined signature, and where the methods and systems automatically detect the operating event in the online industrial process based on the determined distance score, and alter parameters of the process (e.g., valves, actuators, etc.) to prevent the operating event.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BYUNG RO LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3707. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571) 270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-2555.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/BYUNG RO LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858