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 .
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/24/2026 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re LongL 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Patent No. US 11,106,199
Claims 1-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of Patent No. US 11,106,199. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
Conflicting claims in the instant application are not patentable distinct because conflicting claims are broader and generic with respect to the applied patented claims, i.e. an obvious variation. Many decisions support the fact that a broad or generic claim is obvious from a specific claim, i.e. an obvious variation. See In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993); In re Vogel and Vogal, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Berg (CA FC) 46 USPG2d 1226 (3/30/1998); Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2d 1865 (CA FC 2001). It is well settled that omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining element perform the same function as before. This notion is supported by In re Karlson, 136 USPG 184 (1963); In re Nelson, 95 USPQ 82 (CCPA 1952); and In re Eliot, 25 USPQ 111 (CCPA 1935).
Features claimed in the Pat No. US 11,106,199 correspond to similar features claimed in the current application as follows:
Patent No. US 11,106,199 B2
Current Application 18/081,267
[AltContent: rect]Claim 1
Claim 1
[AltContent: rect]Claim 2
Claim 6
[AltContent: rect]Claim 3
Claim 7
[AltContent: rect]Claim 4
Claim 4
[AltContent: rect]Claim 5
Claim 8
[AltContent: rect]Claim 6
Claim 2
[AltContent: rect]Claim 7
Claim 3
[AltContent: rect]Claim 8
Claim 4
[AltContent: rect]Claim 9
Claim 5
[AltContent: rect]Claim 10
Claim 10
[AltContent: rect]Claim 11
Claim 11
[AltContent: rect]Claim 12
Claim 12
[AltContent: rect]Claim 13
Claim 13
[AltContent: rect]Claim 14
Claim 14
[AltContent: rect]Claim 15
Claim 15
[AltContent: rect]Claim 16
Claim 16
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Likewise, claim 10 is a system claim.
Under step 2A, prong 1: this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception as explained in MPEP 2106.4, subsection II, a claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial exception is set forth or described in the claim.
Claims 1 and 10 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. Claim1 is directed to the abstract idea of interpreting data from a plurality of input sensors, wherein each of the plurality of input sensors is operationally coupled to a component of an industrial environment; operating a self-organizing network on the data from the plurality of input sensors, thereby determining a structure in the data; determining a relevance of the determined structure in the data to at least one role stored within a role taxonomy; determining a reduced dimensionality view of the data in response to the determined structure in the data, wherein the reduced dimensionality view comprises fewer dimensions than the data from the plurality of input sensors, and wherein the reduced dimensionality view further comprises a graphical element representing at least one of: mechanical portions of a machine of the industrial environment, or a sensor from the plurality of input sensors that provided data. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are providing the reduced dimensionality view to a user interface that is associated with at least one entity associated with the at least one role stored within the role taxonomy; which is mere an extra solution activity such as outputting data (i.e. providing a view to a user interface); and a sensor communication circuit, a controller, a user interface and input sensors, which are conventional or generic equipment which do not add anything significant to the judicial exception because these instruments are needed in order to provide the reduced dimensionality view to a user interface. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 10 is directed to the abstract idea of interpret a plurality of sensor data values from a plurality of input sensors, wherein each of the plurality of input sensors is operationally coupled to a component of an industrial environment; a controller configured to: operate a self-organizing network on the data from the plurality of input sensors, thereby determining a structure in the data; and determine a reduced dimensionality view of the data in response to the determined structure in the data and in response to a relevance of the determined structure in the data to at least one role stored within a role taxonomy, wherein the reduced dimensionality view comprises fewer dimensions than the data from the plurality of input sensors, and wherein the reduced dimensionality view further comprises a plurality of graphical elements representing mechanical portions of a machine of the industrial environment. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are a user interface configured to display the reduced dimensionality view; which is mere an extra solution activity such as outputting data (i.e. display the reduced dimensionality view); and a sensor communication circuit, a controller, a user interface and input sensors, which are conventional or generic equipment which do not add anything significant to the judicial exception because these elements are needed in order to display the reduced dimensionality view to a user interface. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The generic data processing and output steps are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., “wherein the reduced dimensionality view comprises fewer dimensions than the data from the plurality of input sensors”) 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 method/system. For instance, nothing is done with the reduced dimensionality view displayed.
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.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-16 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the abstract steps of claims 1 and 10 respectively or simply further describing the mechanical portion, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
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