DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
2. Claim 1, 3-15, and 17-22 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
3. No foreign priority has been claimed. This application claims benefit to numerous applications cited in applicants specification with the earliest filing date of application 62/333,589 being 05-09-2016.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/04/2025 was received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawings submitted on 05/31/2023 are in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.81 and 37 CFR § 1.83 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 3-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
Claim 1
A monitoring system for data collection in an industrial environment, the system comprising:
a data collector communicatively coupled to a plurality of input channels connected to data collection points related to machine components of a machine, wherein at least one of the plurality of input channels is connected to a data collection point on at least one machine component of the machine components;
a data acquisition circuit structured to interpret a plurality of detection values from collected data, each of the plurality of detection values corresponding to at least one of the plurality of input channels
an expert system analysis circuit structured to analyze the collected data, wherein the expert system analysis circuit determines at least one system characterization value based on analysis of the plurality of detection values, (
wherein the at least one system characterization value includes at least one of: a predicted outcome of a process, a product yield description, a net present value NPV)for a process, a process completion time, a process chance of completion success, or a product purity result and
wherein the at least one system characterization value further includes a prediction parameter, the prediction parameter including at least one of: number of production batches, a production defined prediction or a rate of change based outcome;
a response circuit, operationally coupled to the expert system analysis circuit, structured to identify a response activity, based, at least in part, on the at least one system characterization value and the prediction parameter and perform the identified response activity.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 13. See the highlighted sections below.
13. A computer implemented method comprising:
collecting data on at least one machine component of a machine;
analyzing the collected data;
determining at least one system characterization value based, at least in part, on the analyzed collected data,
wherein the at least one system characterization value includes at least one of: a predicted outcome of a process, a product yield description, a net present value (NPV) for a process, a process completion time, a process chance of completion success, or a product purity result, and
wherein the at least one system characterization value further includes a prediction parameter, the prediction parameter including at least one of: number of production batches, a production defined prediction, or a rate of change based outcome;
identifying a response activity based, at least in part, on the at least one system characterization value for the at least one machine component and the prediction parameter; and
performing the response activity.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a system claim. Likewise, claim 13 is a process claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 is found to include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical process and/or mental process. This can be seen in the claim limitation of “ a data acquisition circuit structured to interpret a plurality of detection values from collected data, each of the plurality of detection values corresponding to at least one of the plurality of input channels
an expert system analysis circuit structured to analyze the collected data, wherein the expert system analysis circuit determines at least one system characterization value based on analysis of the plurality of detection values, (
wherein the at least one system characterization value includes at least one of: a predicted outcome of a process, a product yield description, a net present value NPV)for a process, a process completion time, a process chance of completion success, or a product purity result and
wherein the at least one system characterization value further includes a prediction parameter, the prediction parameter including at least one of: number of production batches, a production defined prediction or a rate of change based outcome;”
which is the judicial exception of a mental process and/or a mathematical concept because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, and/or judgements capable of being performed mentally.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract idea of Claims 13.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed method recites additional elements including
Claim 1 “a data collector communicatively coupled to a plurality of input channels connected to data collection points related to machine components of a machine, wherein at least one of the plurality of input channels is connected to a data collection point on at least one machine component of the machine components;
a response circuit, operationally coupled to the expert system analysis circuit, structured to identify a response activity, based, at least in part, on the at least one system characterization value and the prediction parameter and perform the identified response activity.
Claim 13:“collecting data on at least one machine component of a machine”
“ performing the response activity.” (claims 1 and 13) which are merely data gathering steps recited at a high level of generality and therefore merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”. The claim is believed to use some sort of processor or the like to implement the functions of the claim, however the “processor” merely amounts to the use of computer technology as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or the use of “processor” to perform the functions, that are otherwise abstract, is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract to a particular field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). It should also be noted that the claim recites performing response activity. While some response activity may qualify as adding significantly more to the abstract idea, the limitation is so broad that it encompasses human activity such turning off equipment, ordering replacement parts, etc.
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically 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 claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, applicant claims preventive activity but this limitation maybe be done by human activity. i.e. ordering replacement parts, scheduling maintenance, etc.
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 with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, 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 (claims 1 and 13). 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 as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claim 13, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 3-12, 14-15 and 17-22, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements therefore these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for independent claims 1 and 13.
Examiner's Note:
8. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
9. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
11. Applicant is reminded that during patent examination, the pending claims must be "given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
While the meaning of claims of issued patents are interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allowed. This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless applicant has provided a clear definition in the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
12. In this instance applicant argues the following:
Applicant argues that the amended claims reflect an improvement in the function of a computer or improvement to other technology or technical field.
This argument is not found to be persuasive as it is unclear how it would provide an improvement to a computer or other technology as the claims as it is not clear exactly what specific technology is claimed. The preamble indicates a generic industrial process. It should be noted that the preamble is not given weight unless it is incorporated in the claim. Even if it were, it is unclear which particular industrial process is being improved. Is it improving a machine that the data is collected form, if so, what type of machine?
Applicant goes on to argue that the claims contain a practical application that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically, improving data collection and providing a response activity.
This argument is not found to be persuasive as the claims merely analyze different data points of a industrial process and identify a response activity and perform the response activity. The claims may interpreted as a human expert writing down observations of an industrial process(data collection) on a notepad, analyzing that data using mental process (is the process performing as intended) and drawing a conclusion (ordering a replacement part, making a maintenance phone call , changing the speed of the production line, etc.) Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant also argues that claim 21 is directed to a practical application, as it further adds a response activity comprising adjusting at least one weight or bias of the neural network…
This argument is not found to be persuasive as the “neural net” is recited at a high level of generality, e.g. Spec. [0012 & 0289] describing a variety of different types of “data analysis circuits and machine learning algorithms” that may be used including a neural net, and therefore merely amounts to the use of computer technology as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or the use of “neural net” to perform the predictions, that are otherwise abstract, is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract to a particular field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Applicant goes on to argue that the Examiner does not provide any explanation as to why the data acquisition circuit, expert system analysis circuit etc. are consider generic. Applicant argues that these circuits are specialized circuits, but the claims do not reflect this.
This argument is not found to be persuasive. These elements are considered generic as no particular definition was provided in applicant’s specification. For example, a neural network maybe a data analysis circuit, Paragraph 0289 state “In examples, machine learning may include a plurality of mathematical and statistical techniques. In examples, the many types of machine learning algorithms may include decision tree based learning, association rule learning, deep learning, artificial neural networks, genetic learning algorithms, inductive logic programming, support vector machines (SVMs), Bayesian network, reinforcement learning, representation learning, rule-based machine learning, sparse dictionary learning, similarity and metric learning, learning classifier systems (LCS), logistic regression, random forest, K-Means, gradient boost and adaboost, K-nearest neighbors (KNN), a priori algorithms, and the like.”
Clearly, as evidenced by applicant’s specification any type of machine learning maybe used. Therefore, the claim limitation is determined to be generic.
This is one example of why a component of applicant’s clams is deemed generic. Applicant may point to a clear definition of any component in applicant’s specification in order to provide evidence as to why the other components should not be interpreted as generic.
Applicant goes on to argue that the claims are not generic as they require 1. Real-time multi-channel data acquisition from industrial machinery, 2. Expert system analysis producing specific industrial metrics (yield, NPV, purity, etc.), 3.Predictive parameters tied to production batches and process states, 4.Automated preventative maintenance actions are required by the claims.
All of these are directed to extra solution activity or the abstract idea. Specifically, for item 1 Examiner finds that the mere speed by which the generic computer implements the claimed invention is not sufficient to constitute patent-eligible subject matter. The sensors or data acquisition circuitry is generic, and the data acquired is not specific. It is directed to industrial machinery, which is a broad field with numerous data points that maybe acquired Further, items 2 and 3 are directed to the abstract idea. While they may not be generic, they are still data points used in a analysis( abstract idea) Finally point 4, appear to be directed to the response activity. Response activity as claimed in the independent claims is generic as numerous activities are further defined in the dependent claims. Some of the dependent claims further define a response activity by reciting placing automated order, or initiating a phone call. These conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document). Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). In this instance ordering a part or making a call are actions a human may take using mental process.
For the reasons stated above, the rejection under USC 101 have been maintained, the arguments with regards to USC 102 rejection have been found to be persuasive and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
13. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
14. 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.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA S BHAT whose telephone number is (571)272-2270. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am-6pm.
16. 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.
17. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
18. 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.
/ADITYA S BHAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 January 9, 2026