DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the application filed 06/30/2023.
Claims 1-11 are presenting for examination. Claims 1, 10, and 11 are independent Claims.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), and based on application # 2022-137933 filed in JAPAN on 08/31/2022, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed 06/30/2023 are accepted for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statements (filed 06/30/2023 and 02/05/2026) have been received, entered into the record, and considered.
Examiner’s Note
5. The rejection regarding Claim 3 is based upon the Examiner’s interpretation of “and/or” equal “or”.
Claim Interpretation
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a training data acquisition unit”, “a machine learning unit”, and “a cause estimation unit” (claim 1).
The specification [0079] appears to show the corresponding structure described in the specification for the named limitations.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step1: determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If YES, proceed to Step 2A, broken into two prongs.
Step 2A, Prong 1: determine whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If YES, the analysis proceeds to the second prong.
Step 2A, Prong 2: determine whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If NOT, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B).
Step 2B: If any element or combination of elements in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claims 1-9:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 1-9 are directed to a system and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 1 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“performs machine learning based on the training data acquired by the training data acquisition unit and that constructs an estimation model in which a learning result is reflected” and “inputs sensing data sensed by the combustion system during a predetermined time period preceding, by the predetermined time, from a new flame failure detection timing into the estimation model and that acquires a new flame failure detection cause output from the estimation model” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas).
Independent Claim 1 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“acquires training data in which sensing data is used as an explanatory variable and a flame failure detection cause is used as an objective variable, the sensing data being sensed by a combustion system during a predetermined time period preceding, by a predetermined time, from a flame failure detection timing when a flame failure is detected based on flame state data indicating a flame state of a burner in the combustion system” (this is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d))
The elements “a cause estimation system”, “a training data acquisition unit”, “a machine learning unit”, and “a cause estimation unit” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitations “the flame state data is a potential difference between both ends of a resistor through which a discharge current flows when a discharge tube of a flame detector discharges due to a flame of the burner, or a value obtained by integrating the discharge current, and the sensing data includes at least one of the flame state data and a flame level indicating discharge frequency of the flame detector” are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitations “the flame failure is detected when a value of the flame state data becomes less than a predetermined threshold value, the sensing data includes at least the flame state data, and the estimation model outputs the different causes depending on whether the value of the flame state data in the predetermined time period transitions within a predetermined range and/or whether the value of the flame state data transitions at a certain reference value or below” are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitations “the cause includes an erroneous detection cause when a flame failure is erroneously detected” are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “the cause includes an erroneous detection cause when a flame failure is erroneously detected” are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6, the limitations “the cause includes an erroneous detection cause when a flame failure is erroneously detected” are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “acquires the training data from a plurality of combustion systems” is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d))
The elements “the training data acquisition unit” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitation “acquires the training data from a plurality of combustion systems” is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d))
The elements “the training data acquisition unit” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitations “acquires the training data from a plurality of combustion systems” is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d))
The elements “the training data acquisition unit” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 10 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 10 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“a machine learning step of performing machine learning based on the training data acquired by the training data acquisition step and constructing an estimation model in which a learning result is reflected” and “a cause estimation step of inputting sensing data sensed by the combustion system during a predetermined time period preceding, by the predetermined time, from a new flame failure detection timing into the estimation model and acquiring a new flame failure detection cause output from the estimation model” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas);
Independent Claim 10 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“a training data acquisition step of acquiring training data in which sensing data is used as an explanatory variable and a flame failure detection cause is used as an objective variable, the sensing data being sensed by a combustion system during a predetermined time period preceding, by a predetermined time, from a flame failure detection timing when a flame failure is detected based on flame state data indicating a flame state of a burner in the combustion system” (this is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d))
The elements “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “a program”, and “a computer” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 11 is directed to method and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 11 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“a machine learning step of performing machine learning based on the training data acquired by the training data acquisition step and constructing an estimation model in which a learning result is reflected” (the limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas);
Independent Claim 11 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“a training data acquisition step of acquiring training data in which sensing data is used as an explanatory variable and a flame failure detection cause is used as an objective variable, the sensing data being sensed by a combustion system during a predetermined time period preceding, by a predetermined time, from a flame failure detection timing when a flame failure is detected based on flame state data indicating a flame state of a burner in the combustion system” (this is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d))
The element “a model construction device” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kucera et al. (US 20200141653).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
As to Claim 11:
Kucera teaches a model construction method executed by a model construction device that performs machine learning and that constructs an estimation model, the model construction method comprising:
a training data acquisition step of acquiring training data in which sensing data is used as an explanatory variable and a flame failure detection cause is used as an objective variable, the sensing data being sensed by a combustion system during a predetermined time period preceding, by a predetermined time, from a flame failure detection timing when a flame failure is detected based on flame state data indicating a flame state of a burner in the combustion system ([0003], [0025-0027], and [0044-0047]); and
a machine learning step of performing machine learning based on the training data acquired by the training data acquisition step and constructing an estimation model in which a learning result is reflected ([0025-0027], [0031], and [0061]).
As to Claim 1:
Kucera teaches a cause estimation system comprising:
a training data acquisition unit that acquires training data in which sensing data is used as an explanatory variable and a flame failure detection cause is used as an objective variable, the sensing data being sensed by a combustion system during a predetermined time period preceding, by a predetermined time, from a flame failure detection timing when a flame failure is detected based on flame state data indicating a flame state of a burner in the combustion system ([0003], [0025-0027], and [0044-0047]);
a machine learning unit that performs machine learning based on the training data acquired by the training data acquisition unit and that constructs an estimation model in which a learning result is reflected ([0025-0027], [0031], and [0061]); and
a cause estimation unit that inputs sensing data sensed by the combustion system during a predetermined time period preceding, by the predetermined time, from a new flame failure detection timing into the estimation model and that acquires a new flame failure detection cause output from the estimation model ([0020], [0026], [0037-0039], [0049-0051], [0053], and [0061]).
As to Claim 2:
Kucera teaches the flame state data is a potential difference between both ends of a resistor through which a discharge current flows when a discharge tube of a flame detector discharges due to a flame of the burner, or a value obtained by integrating the discharge current ([0016-0019], [0038],and [0049]), and the sensing data includes at least one of the flame state data and a flame level indicating discharge frequency of the flame detector ([0020-0022] and [0049-0050]).
As to Claim 3:
Kucera teaches the flame failure is detected when a value of the flame state data becomes less than a predetermined threshold value ([0044-0045] and [0049-0050]), the sensing data includes at least the flame state data, and the estimation model outputs the different causes depending on whether the value of the flame state data in the predetermined time period transitions within a predetermined range and/or whether the value of the flame state data transitions at a certain reference value or below ([0018-0020] and [0049-0050]).
As to Claim 4:
Kucera teaches the cause includes an erroneous detection cause when a flame failure is erroneously detected ([0019-0020] and [0035-0037]).
As to Claim 5:
Kucera teaches the cause includes an erroneous detection cause when a flame failure is erroneously detected ([0019-0020] and [0035-0037]).
As to Claim 6:
Kucera teaches the cause includes an erroneous detection cause when a flame failure is erroneously detected ([0019-0020] and [0035-0037]).
As to Claim 7:
Kucera teaches the training data acquisition unit acquires the training data from a plurality of combustion systems ([0003], [0019-0020], [0027], and [0037]).
As to Claim 8:
Kucera teaches the training data acquisition unit acquires the training data from a plurality of combustion systems ([0003], [0019-0020], [0027], and [0037]).
As to Claim 9:
Kucera teaches the training data acquisition unit acquires the training data from a plurality of combustion systems ([0003], [0019-0020], [0027], and [0037]).
As to Claim 10:
Refer to the discussion of Claim 1 above for rejection. Claim 10 is the same as Claim 1, except Claim 10 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium Claim and Claim 1 is a system Claim.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact information
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MAIKHANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4093. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00 am – 5:30 pm). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TAMARA KYLE can be reached at (571)272-4241.
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 and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, 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.
/MAIKHANH NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144