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.
Claims 1-10, 12-17, 19-25, 27, 29, 33-35
Claims 1-10. 12-17, 19-25, 27, 29, 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. However, the claimed invention is directed to performing a mental process with generic computing devices and off-the-shelf AI applications without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of the claims regarding subject matter eligibility in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG):
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis
Step 1: Do the Claims Specify a Statutory Category?
Claims 1-10, 12-17 describe a method/process, claims 19-25, 27, 29, 33-35 describe a system, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 1-10, 12-17
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Independent claim 1 recites receiving data from devices, comparing data, determining a fault from comparing result, displaying result, and performing enhanced diagnostics which include data health analysis for determining a classification of the fault. The limitations describe processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., use of a processor or a generic computer). That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind using a generic computing system. The limitations involve making evaluations of the collected data to compare to determine differences, thereby describing an observation and/or evaluation of data. Such an observation and/or evaluation of data can be performed by a human and recites a mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the practical performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The applicant has amended the claims to define the “enhanced diagnostics” as claimed prior. The new language of analyzing the collected data and classifying is still interpreted as a mental process as a human could easily look at the collected data to see if it is a hardware or software fault based on any annotated data or even the data string itself, e.g., “hardware.temp>threshold” or “data.access.violation” which could be interpreted as hardware and software faults, respectively.
Claims 2-3, 5 recites a machine learning model for training with datasets. The limitations in the claims merely describe the use of machine learning without any specification of details pertaining to how the associated machine learning model is trained and/or how the actual machine learning is performed. Such details would include description of specific algorithms used in training the machine learning model. As currently written, the limitations in the claims describe merely recite the comparison of data and using historical data in the model. The data evaluations describe mathematical concepts that can be performed by a human (i.e., as a mental process and/or by using pen/paper) and are therefore directed to the identified judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no indication that the combination of elements solves a technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing artificial intelligence technology (i.e., machine learning) in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s).
Claims 4, 6-10, 12, 14, 16-17 recites types of data being collected, as well as how, when, and from where they are collected. These claims contain no additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract idea(s).
Claim 13 recite further mental processes of comparing data and determining results using a computer as a tool. See above rejection of claim 1.
Claim 15 further recites displaying data, see claim 1 rejection re: Electric Power Group.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 1 recites a computer implemented method using a processor and GUI. Even if the described methods are implemented on a computer, there is no indication that the combination of elements in the claim solves any particular technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing computer technology in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exceptions. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s). The processor cited in the claim is described at a high level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 1 further recites receiving data from devices, comparing data, determining a fault from comparing result, displaying result, and performing enhanced diagnostics which include data health analysis for determining a classification of the fault. These limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering, data analysis and determining classification based on the analysis without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
The claim, as amended, recites the new language of the enhanced diagnostics. The examiner interprets this new language as not integrating the abstract idea into practical application as it does not apply the “targeted remediation” as argued in the Remarks, page 13 of 15. Since there is no remediation performed, there is no improvement of the computer itself. Likewise, there is no language as to the field of improvement other than a computing device, which could include anything.
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
In the instant case, as detailed in the analysis for Step 2A-Prong 2, claim 1 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea. The GUI and devices recited in the claim describe a generic computing components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
The limitations pertaining to gathering of data, evaluating the data and the classifying of results describe insignificant extra-solution activity and are written at a high level in a generic manner without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken.
The claims recite to perform enhanced diagnostics of further analysis and classifying of data. Again, the examiner interprets this as merely more data analysis and organization of data as done by a human mind. The further data analysis is interpreted as insignificant as it is merely organizing the data and not applied to anything. The applicant has essentially argued the invention is an improvement to the existing data analysis. The examiner contends that an improvement to an abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
Therefore, these limitations recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas defined in the claim.
Claims 1-10, 12-17 recite limitations regarding the use of machine learning and the training of a machine learning model. As discussed above in the Step 2A - Prong 2 analysis regarding integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the limitations, as currently written, describe evaluations and mathematical concepts that can be performed by a human (i.e., as a mental process and/or by using pen/paper) and are therefore directed to the identified judicial exception. The dependent claims recite the machine learning actions which describe a mental process and/or mathematical concepts is equivalent to merely specifying instructions to apply the judicial exception using unsupervised learning. See MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no indication that the combination of elements solves a technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing artificial intelligence technology (i.e., machine learning) in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer component, or utilizing generic artificial intelligence technology to apply the identified judicial exception, does not describe an inventive concept.
Conclusion
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 1-10, 12-17 recite and are directed to abstract ideas and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea(s). Claims 1-10, 12-17, 31-32 are therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 19-25, 27, 29
Claims 19-25, 27, 29, as amended, contain limitations for a system which are similar to the limitations for the methods specified in claims 1-10, 12-17, respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1, Step 2A – Prong 2, and Step 2B for claims 19-25, 27, 29, 29 is similar to that presented above for claims 1-10, 12-17.
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 19-25, 27, 29 recite and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract ideas(s). Claims 19-25, 27, 29 are therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 33-35
Claims 33-35, as added, contain limitations for a system which are similar to the limitations for the methods specified in claims 1-10, 12-17, respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1, Step 2A – Prong 2, and Step 2B for claims 33-35 is similar to that presented above for claims 1-10, 12-17.
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 33-35 recite and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract ideas(s). Claims 33-35 are therefore not patent eligible.
Claim 33 recites the limitations of claim 1 without the newly added limitation of the enhanced diagnostics. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies, as stated above for all sections. The claim also cites displaying data. The collecting and displaying are precedented as abstract, as cited in the following:
An example of claims that recite mental processes cited in the October 2019 Update to the 2019 PEG includes “a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.” Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A, B, and C).
Claims 34-35 recite mere types of data collection, analysis and classification of said data. The same arguments are applicable as the above set from claim 1.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has argued the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, are integrated into a practical application, and recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner has stated the rebuttal of these arguments in the rejections above.
The examiner suggests actual improvement to the system to overcome the rejection. For instance, using the data analysis and classification to actually remediate the fault rather than just citing a fault. Another suggestion is to integrate specific field applicability language into the claim and further integrate such language to an improvement to the field.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S MCCARTHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571)272-3655. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S MCCARTHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights