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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are pending.
This action is response to the application filed on June 21, 2023.
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
This application is based upon and claims the benefit of priority from Japanese Patent Application No. 2022-102925, filed on June 27, 2022, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein in its entirety by reference.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/21/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
CLAIMS MUST BE GIVEN THEIR BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION IN LIGHT OF THE SPECIFICATION
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard: The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.".
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 1:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea. The claim recites method of learning a neural network that predicts a remaining life of a target device that is a maintenance target, wherein the neural network includes: (i) a first model for predicting a remaining life at an arbitrary time of maintenance cycle data that are time series operation data of the time series from immediately after maintenance of the target device to immediately before a next maintenance, as a value based on an arbitrary reference value; and (ii) a second model for predicting a remaining life at a final time of the maintenance cycle data, as a value based on the reference value, and the method comprises updating a weight parameter of the first model so as to predict a remaining life based on an end of the maintenance cycle data, by using an output of the first model and an output of the second model that are obtained from learning data including a plurality of maintenance cycle data.
Claim 1 recites a “mental process” abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper. Specifically, claim 1 recites the following limitations that can be practically performed in the mind.
The limitations of the claim recites method of learning a neural network that predicts a remaining life of a target device that is a maintenance target, wherein the neural network includes: (i) a first model for predicting a remaining life at an arbitrary time of maintenance cycle data that are time series operation data of the time series from immediately after maintenance of the target device to immediately before a next maintenance, as a value based on an arbitrary reference value; and (ii) a second model for predicting a remaining life at a final time of the maintenance cycle data, as a value based on the reference value, and the method comprises updating a weight parameter of the first model so as to predict a remaining life based on an end of the maintenance cycle data, by using an output of the first model and an output of the second model that are obtained from learning data including a plurality of maintenance cycle data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. "(i) a first model for predicting” can be done mentally.
“(ii) a second model for predicting” can be done mentally and "updating a weight parameter” can be done mentally without computer.
As per MPEP 2106,04(a)(2) III “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant can be advised to amend the claims (claims 1-8) to read as “A(The) computer- implemented method”.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art made of Seabloom et al (US 20220414556 A1) teaches learning a neural network that predicts a remaining life of a target device that is a maintenance target. Seabloom et al (US 20220414556 A1) but fails to teach the following claimed features in combination with overall claimed limitations when interpreted in light of the specification.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art taken as a whole does not show the neural network includes: (i) a first model for predicting a remaining life at an arbitrary time of maintenance cycle data that are time series operation data of the time series from immediately after maintenance of the target device to immediately before a next maintenance, as a value based on an arbitrary reference value; and (ii) a second model for predicting a remaining life at a final time of the maintenance cycle data, as a value based on the reference value, and the method comprises updating a weight parameter of the first model so as to predict a remaining life based on an end of the maintenance cycle data, by using an output of the first model and an output of the second model that are obtained from learning data including a plurality of maintenance cycle data and as specifically called for the claimed combinations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”. Claims 9-10 are allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAAC M WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-4043. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 to 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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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.
/ISAAC M WOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163