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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite the steps of receiving, analyzing, matching and identifying a root cause. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation this covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Metal Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Matching using a ternary match operator can be considered a mathematical calculation or forming a mental opinion or judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Applicant fails to include any additional element that integrate into a practical application. Accessing a potential fault scenario comprising a plurality of symptoms, wherein the potential fault scenario has at least one corresponding root cause, and a representation of the symptom comprises a ternary value amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Outputting one or more matched causes as one or more probable root cause failures of the monitored system is a well known form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements alone in combination do amount to significantly more than generic computer elements apply abstract ideas to a generic method to solve generic problems. MPEP 2106.5(d) II, MPEP 2106.05(f) ((2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); ), (2106.05(g) (3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). ) and 2106.05(h)(Although the additional elements did limit the use of the abstract idea, the court explained that this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (cellular telephones) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. 838 F.3d at 1259, 120 USPQ2d at 1204.) The T-CAM is recited at a high level of generality and used in its conventional capacity for storing data.
Applicant fails to recited additional element that amount to more than the judicial exception. The claims access known fault scenarios to match them against received fault scenarios to determine a root cause. Applicant states “the principles of operation, the dependencies between components and the potential root cause failures and their symptoms are generally known as part of the design process” (¶0030). The courts have recognized the 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. Applicant’s outputting a repair to the system is and insignificant post solution activity. Applicant’s sensors fails sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements alone in combination do amount to significantly more than generic computer elements apply abstract ideas to a generic method to solve generic problems.
Thus the claim amount to the simple application of a series of abstract ideas, implemented as steps on a generic computer. MPEP 2106.05(d) II: 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).
For the same reasons as listed above claims 2-21 are rejected, these claims follow the same analysis and conclusion of ineligibility. Claims 20 discloses a system that performs the method steps. Claims 21 discloses a computer program product that performs the method steps.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 7:
Claims 1, 20, and 21 have been amended in a manner that is believed to overcome the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101. Specifically, a ternary match operator configured to match a
ternary actual fault scenario with a ternary content-addressable memory (T-CAM) (emphasis
added) as recited in the amended claims is a specific structure and is not the same as a generic
computer. Furthermore, as taught in the instant specification at Para 0044: 'This matching is
essentially "ternary matching" but unlike the ternary matching provided by a [traditional] ternary
content-addressable memory, the input fault scenario is also ternary.' (emphasis added)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments that the claimed invention in no performed on a generic computer is not persuasive. Even if the claim recites specialized hardware such as T-CAM, the claim is still directed to an abstract idea if reties mathematical operations or a mental process. The ternary matching describes a mathematical comparison of multi valued data, which is a form of abstract idea. The claim does not recite any improvement to the functioning of the technology or T-CAM. The T-CAM is recited at a high level of generality and used in its conventional capacity for storing data. The additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHARLES EHNE whose telephone number is (571)272-2471. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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.
/CHARLES EHNE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights