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 .
Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-3, 5, 11-13, and 15 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 101.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a). New grounds of rejection are presented under 35 USC 101 to address the claim amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 101 have been considered but are moot because the arguments relate to the claim amendments. The claim amendments are addressed in the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claims 1 and 11, the claim amendment adds the limitation “altering said state of said system based on said first prediction estimate if said forecast of said value of said characteristic is above a threshold to prescribe an action to avoid a failure of said system.” Although paragraph [0053] of the specification recites “the state of the system is altered based on the fourth estimate.”, the claim amendment is not sufficiently supported by the specification to show that the inventors were in possession of the claimed invention as amended. It is also noted that the original claim 5 discloses “altering said state of said system based on said first prediction estimate” which supports a portion of the claim amendment.
The dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 inherit the deficiency of claims 1 and 11 respectively and are rejected in the same way.
In claims 2 and 12, the claim amendment adds the limitation “said altering said state is based on said second prediction estimate if said another forecast of said value of said characteristic is above a threshold to prescribe an action to avoid a failure of said system”. Although paragraph [0053] of the specification recites “the state of the system is altered based on the fourth estimate.”, the claim amendment is not sufficiently supported by the specification to show that the inventors were in possession of the claimed invention as amended.
In claims 3 and 13, the claim amendment adds the limitation “said altering said state is based on said plurality of prediction estimates if at least one of said plurality of forecasts of said value of said characteristic is above a threshold to prescribe an action to avoid a failure of said system”. Although paragraph [0053] of the specification recites “the state of the system is altered based on the fourth estimate.”, the claim amendment is not sufficiently supported by the specification to show that the inventors were in possession of the claimed invention as amended.
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.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite a mental process and mathematical calculation; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 1:
Claims 1-10 are directed to the statutory category of processes, and claims 11-20 are directed to the statutory category of machines.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 1:
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
A method, comprising
making a first measurement from a sensor of a system of a value of a characteristic of a state of said system;
making a second measurement from said sensor of said system of a value of said characteristic of said state of said system after said first measurement;
constructing a first filter measurement estimate after said second measurement coinciding with said first measurement including a first filter measurement covariance matrix describing an accuracy of said first filter measurement estimate;
constructing a first filter time estimate after said first filter measurement estimate including a first filter time covariance matrix describing an accuracy of said first filter time estimate employing a dynamic model of said state of said system;
constructing a second filter measurement estimate after said first filter time estimate coinciding with said second measurement including a second filter measurement covariance matrix describing an accuracy of said second filter measurement estimate;
constructing a second filter time estimate after said second filter measurement estimate including a second filter time covariance matrix describing an accuracy of said second filter time estimate employing said dynamic model of said state of said system;
constructing a smoothing estimate from said first filter measurement estimate and said second filter measurement estimate;
constructing a first prediction estimate after said smoothing estimate that provides a forecast of a value of said characteristic of said state of said system including a first prediction covariance matrix describing an accuracy of said first prediction estimate employing said dynamic model of said state of said system; and
altering said state of said system based on said first prediction estimate if said forecast of said value of said characteristic is above a threshold to prescribe an action to avoid a failure of said system.
The limitations beginning with “constructing…” are an abstract idea because it is directed to a mathematical calculations/operation. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “making a first measurement from a sensor of a system of a value of a characteristic of a state of said system; making a second measurement from said sensor of said system of a value of said characteristic of said state of said system after said first measurement; ” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g)). “altering said state of said system based on said first prediction estimate if said forecast of said value of said characteristic is above a threshold to prescribe an action to avoid a failure of said system.” (“Apply it” – MPEP 2106.05(f))”, “examiners may consider the following: (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.”).
Claim 1 Step 2B:
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations considered directed towards field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP2106.05(g).
The insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity is further Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (WURC), see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. ii. Electronic recordkeeping”, analogous to the first and second measurements.
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 Step 2A prong 1:
The limitation “constructing a second prediction estimate after said first prediction estimate that provides another forecast of a value of said characteristic of said state of said system including a second prediction covariance matrix describing an accuracy of said second prediction estimate employing said dynamic model of said state of said system” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mathematical calculations/operation. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 2 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “said altering said state is based on said second prediction estimate if said another forecast of said value of said characteristic is above a threshold to prescribe an action to avoid a failure of said system.” (“Apply it” – MPEP 2106.05(f))”, “examiners may consider the following: (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.”).
Claim 2 Step 2B:
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations considered directed towards field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP2106.05(g). Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 2 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 Step 2A prong 1:
The limitation “constructing a plurality of prediction estimates that provides a corresponding plurality of forecasts of a value of said characteristic of said state of said system including a corresponding plurality of prediction covariance matrices describing an accuracy of said plurality of prediction estimates employing said dynamic model of said state of said system.” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a math process. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 3 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “said altering said state is based on said plurality of prediction estimates if at least one of said plurality of forecasts of said value of said characteristic is above a threshold to prescribe an action to avoid a failure of said system.” (“Apply it” – MPEP 2106.05(f))”, “examiners may consider the following: (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.”).
Claim 3 Step 2B:
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations considered directed towards field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP2106.05(g). Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 3 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 Step 2A prong 1:
The limitation “constructing said smoothing estimate comprises sweeping backward recursively from said second filter measurement estimate to said first filter measurement estimate.” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mathematical operation. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 4 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional claim elements outside the abstract idea.
Claim 4 Step 2B:
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations considered directed towards field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP2106.05(g). Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 4 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 Step 2A prong 1:
The claim recites no further abstract ideas.
Claim 5 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “said altering said state of said system based on said first prediction estimate is performed in real time” (“Apply it” – MPEP 2106.05(f))”, “examiners may consider the following: (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.”).
Claim 5 Step 2B:
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations considered directed towards field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP2106.05(g). Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 5 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 Step 2A prong 1:
The limitation “said constructing said first filter measurement estimate, said first filter time estimate, said second filter measurement estimate and said second filter time estimate are performed by a Kalman filter.” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mathematical calculation. The limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, is “a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation.”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Using a Kalman filter is a mathematical calculation.
Claim 6 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional claim elements outside the abstract idea.
Claim 6 Step 2B:
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations considered directed towards field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP2106.05(g). Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 6 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 Step 2A prong 1:
The claim recites no further abstract ideas.
Claim 7 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “reporting said state of said system based on said first prediction estimate.” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data outputting MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 7 Step 2B:
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations considered directed towards field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP2106.05(g). Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 7 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 Step 2A prong 1:
The claim recites no further abstract ideas.
Claim 8 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “wherein said first measurement comprises a plurality of independent measurements characterized by a diagonal measurement covariance matrix.” (general field of use – MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 8 Step 2B:
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations considered directed towards field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP2106.05(g). Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 8 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 Step 2A prong 1:
The claim recites no further abstract ideas.
Claim 9 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “wherein said dynamic model comprises a linear dynamic model with constant coefficients.” (general field of use – MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 9 Step 2B:
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations considered directed towards field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP2106.05(g). Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 9 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 Step 2A prong 1:
The claim recites no further abstract ideas.
Claim 10 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “wherein said dynamic model comprises a matrix with coefficients that describes a temporal evolution of said state of said system.” (general field of use – MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 10 Step 2B:
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations considered directed towards field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP2106.05(g). Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 10 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11: The claim is rejected in substantially the same way as claim 1. The additional limitations “An apparatus operable to construct a state of a system, comprising: processing circuitry coupled to a memory, configured to:” are characterized as “apply it” – MPEP 2106.05(f) under Step 2A prong 2.
Claims 12-20: The claims are rejected in substantially the same way as claims 2-10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to as being allowable if amended to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 101.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if amended to overcome the 112(a) and 101 rejections above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art as exemplified by Stall, Song, and Cabe fails to teach, alone or in obvious combination, “
constructing a second filter time estimate after said second filter measurement estimate including a second filter time covariance matrix describing an accuracy of said second filter time estimate employing said dynamic model of said state of said system; and
constructing a first prediction estimate after said smoothing estimate that provides a forecast of a value of said characteristic of said state of said system including a first prediction covariance matrix describing an accuracy of said first prediction estimate employing said dynamic model of said state of said system.”, in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
Claim 11 is allowable in the same way as claim 1.
The dependent claims inherit the limitations of the independent claims 1 and 11 respectively.
The prior art of record Staal et al. (“Kalman Smoothing for Objective and Automatic Preprocessing of Glucose Data” 2018) teaches various estimates as cited in the previous case 16/674,848. However, the reference does not disclose estimating as claimed in the instant application.
The prior art of record Song (US 2016/0334807 A1) teaches making a change to a system based on an estimate as in claim 5, but does not teach the estimating as in the independent claims.
The prior art of record Cabe et al. (US 2017/0276783 A1) teaches a diagonal measurement covariance matrix, but does not teach the estimating as in the independent claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TROY A MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-1931. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8AM to 4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3676. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/T.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189