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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-19 were pending as of previous office action (Non-Final rejection dated 01/28/2026).
Claims 1-5, 10-14, and 19 are amended. Claim 20 is added.
Amendments to claims (dated 04/22/2026) have been fully reviewed and are accepted. Applicant’s arguments have been fully reviewed; response detailed below.
Objection to Drawings
With respect objections to drawings made in previous office action, Examiner has reviewed corrected drawings and finds appropriate corrections for Figure 1 have been submitted. Objection to drawings is withdrawn.
Objection to Specification
With respect to objections made to specification, specifically to paragraph [0007], Examiner finds corrections to be appropriate to add necessary clarity. Objection to specification is withdrawn.
Objection to Claims (minor informalities)
With respect to objections to claims in reference to minor informalities, specifically, Claims 2 and 19, Examiner finds amended claim language has address identified corrections. Examiner acknowledges objection to Claim 2 was misdirected in previous office action to Claim1, and appreciates Applicant’s attention to the correction to Claim 2, as well as correction to same language in Claim 11. Objections to Claims 2 and 19 are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b)
With respect to rejection of Claims 1-5, 10-14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), Amendments to claim limitations have addressed identified issues which rendered these claims to be indefinite in previous office action. However, while Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are persuasive with respect to rejections made in previous office action, amendments have raised new issues of indefiniteness.
Regarding rejection as cited in previous office action of Claims 1, 10, and 19, indefiniteness of term “time step” is overcome with addition of clarity regarding how “time step” is defined.
Further, as noted in previous office action, Claims 2 and 11 were found to be indefinite due to antecedent issue for term “each group identifier”. Examiner finds claims as currently amended include the necessary information to overcome rejection involving antecedent issue.
With regard to Claims 3-4, and 12-13, similarly, amendments to these claims have overcome the indefinite issue involving the term “in close proximity”.
Lastly, with regarding indefiniteness of Claims 5 and 14 over terms, “determining score metrics based a division of related data”. Examiner finds amended claim limitations to address the rejection, adding clarity, such that the indefiniteness issue is overcome for the identified phrase.
Examiner notes that while amended limitations have addressed identified issues which rendered Claims 1-5, 10-14, and 19 as indefinite in previous office action, Claims as amended raise new issues of indefiniteness which are detailed in new grounds of rejection as detailed below.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments regarding rejection of Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-19 are not persuasive. Specifically, amendments to claims, particularly limitation found in independent claims 1, 10, and 19, as currently amended, reciting “feedback is used to automatically adjust operational parameters of the one or more cooling devices in a data center server room” do not clearly indicate how such a direct action would be actualized. Rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained and detailed below with new ground necessitated by amendments.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
With respect to rejection of Claims 1-19, Examiner find claims as currently amended to differentiate over the best identified prior art such that the claimed invention differentiates over prior art. Applicant’s arguments are persuasive in view of currently amended limitations. Detailed reasons for allowable subject matter, including evaluation additional claim 20 is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, 10, and 19 recite (bold emphasis added): Claim 1 recites “wherein the evaluating and observing the changes comprises eliminating unimportant changes”. This phrase renders Claim 1 to be indefinite because there is no language previous to this instance which specifically identified which changes are being eliminated, i.e., the intended meaning of “unimportant” and “eliminating” is not defined. Applicant is encouraged to amend with more definite language such as that in paragraph [0057].
Claim 1, and similarly claims 10, and 19 recite (bold emphasis added): “evaluating changes in multiple iterations including a short-term check to determine if a detected change is big enough to be considered, a mid-term check to determine if the detected change is still present and was not just an outlier, and a long-term check to determine if the change is affecting performance after a longer time period has passed”. The terms in bold renders Claims 1, 10, and 19 to be indefinite because the meaning of the terms is not found. Using broadest reasonable interpretation and plain meaning, these terms are interpreted to mean generally a comparative assessment, but it is not clear what parameter is being used to ascertain “short”, “mid”, or “long”, and what time period is used to determine “longer”. In review of the specification, the terms appear in , [0035], and [0049] with reference to FIG. 8, but Examiner finds no further explanation in these passages.
Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are rejected due to direct or indirect dependency on Claims 1 or 19.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fall into statutory categories as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101 (See MPEP § 2106.03), as discussed in detail below.
Claim 1, and similarly Claims 19, and 20 are held to be patent ineligible, as explained below, using evaluation as detailed in MPEP § 2106.03.
Specifically, Claim 1, as currently amended recites (bold emphasis added)
“method, comprising: executing an incremental Principal Component Analysis (PCA) modeler to build a PCA model for sensor measurements associated with one or more cooling devices of a location to be monitored;
detecting changes at each time step of the sensor measurements based on a change in a number of principal components or for when a reconstruction error exceeds a threshold; and
evaluating and observing the changes to generate feedback regarding the one or more cooling devices,
wherein the evaluating and observing the changes comprises
eliminating unimportant changes by evaluating changes in multiple iterations including a short-term check to determine if a detected change is big enough to be considered, a mid-term check to determine if the detected change is still present and was not just an outlier, and a long-term check to determine if the change is affecting performance after a longer time period has passed, and
wherein the feedback is used to automatically adjust operational parameters of the one or more cooling devices in a data center server room.”
STEP 1 - Determination of statutory category: Claim 1, and similarly, Claims 10 and 19 fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101, namely, Claim 1: Method (Process); Claim 10: Machine (Manufacture); Claim 19: Machine/Manufacture (Apparatus). See MPEP § 2106.03 (I) (II).
STEP 2A PRONG ONE-Determination regarding whether claim recites a judicial
Exception: Applying broadest reasonable interpretation and using plain meaning to the limitations noted above in bold emphasis recite a judicial exception. These limitations include: executing an incremental Principal Component Analysis (PCA) modeler to build a PCA model; detecting changes at each time step; based on a change in a number of principal components; a reconstruction error exceeds a threshold; evaluating and observing the changes to generate feedback; evaluating and observing the changes; eliminating unimportant changes by evaluating changes in multiple iterations; short-term check to determine if a detected change is big enough; mid-term check to determine if the detected change is still present; long-term check to determine if the change is affecting performance after a longer time period”. Such limitations constitute a judicial exception of Abstract Idea because under broadest reasonable interpretation and using 2024 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the limitations fall into the grouping of subject matter that covers performing mathematical processes or mental steps (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), I.A,C, III.B,C) Examiner notes execution of the claimed limitations involve performing mathematics using at least some generic computer components, but some limitations may be performed by mental steps. Specifically, Claim 1 recites: “executing an incremental Principal Component Analysis (PCA) modeler to build a PCA model” which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize generic computational components for “execution”. This interpretation is supported by further review of the specification, for example, specification in at least [0071]-[0077], with details of mathematical operations and calculations as performed computationally are presented. Specifically, FIG. 8 depicts explicitly the mathematical operations involved in “Change calculator” process. Claim 1 does not recite further details regarding the PCA model. Thus Claim 1 recites a judicial exception. Similarly, with parallel limitations, Claims 10 and 19 recite the same judicial exception(s).
STEP 2A-PRONG TWO: : Evaluation of additional elements to determine whether. Claim 1, and similarly Claims 10 and 19, does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, Claim 1, and similarly Claims 10 and 19, recites additional elements, including: “sensor measurements associated with one or more cooling devices of a location to be monitored” Examiner this additional element recites necessary data gathering required to provide data for carrying out the judicial exception as defined in analysis above. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. receiving data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Further, Claim 1, and similarly Claims 10 and 19, recites: “regarding the one or more cooling devices”. Such language is considered as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, but does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Claim 1, similarly Claims 10 and 19, also recites additional element of “generate feedback” and “feedback is used to automatically adjust operational parameters of the one or more cooling devices in a data center server room.” Using the specification for guidance, including FIGs. 9, 10, 11 with [0023-25]; the term “feedback” is explained as stored data (FIG. 9 , element 904) or “graphical user interface configured to display the feedback” (FIG. 11, with [0074]). As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), displaying analysis/results is considered extra solution activity in light of Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that since the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. Similarly there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claims that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state.
STEP 2B-Consideration of whether the claim amounts to significantly more than
the abstract idea. Additional elements, as discussed above, do not amount significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, limitations reciting necessary data gathering, or display of a mathematical result, even when linked to a particular data source or a type of data, are considered to be insignificant extra solution activity.
As noted, identified additional elements in the Claim 1 are recited in generality
and represent insignificant field of use limitations that is not meaningful to indicate a
practical application. And, as above, other identified additional elements area considered as necessary data gathering required to perform the abstract idea (i.e.
“collects real-time data”) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S.
at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359,
1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). (MPEP section 2106.05(g))
Thus, Claim 1, and similarly Claims 10 and 19, is directed to a judicial exception and is held to be patent ineligible.
Further eligibility consideration includes evaluation of Claims 2-9 and 20, with direct or indirect dependency to Claim 1 and Claims 11-19 with dependency to Claim 10. Evaluation of these claims reveals limitations which further limit performing the mathematical process/mental steps judicial exception, or other additional elements which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical idea. Specifically, limitations as recited in dependent claims do not integrate the abstract concept into a practical application and do not include additional elements considered significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 10, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 2-9, 11-18, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The best prior art made available on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as cited in previous office action, was discovered to be: MISHIN (“Real time change point detection by incremental PCA in large scale sensor data” 2014 IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference (HPEC), Waltham, MA, USA, 2014, pp. 1-6. (Year: 2014)); BHUSHAN (Bhushan, et al., “INCREMENTAL PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS BASED OUTLIER DETECTION METHODS FOR SPATIOTEMPORAL DATA STREAMS”, ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume II-4/W2, 2015 International Workshop on Spatiotemporal Computing, 13–15 July 2015, Fairfax, Virginia, USA); and HAMILTON (US 20170366414 A1), LI 2000 (LI, et al., “Recursive PCA for adaptive process monitoring”, Journal of Process Control, Volume 10, Issue 5, October 2000, Pages 471-486.), and ENVER (US 20170102694 A1).
The identified prior art teaches the following limitations recited in independent Claims 1, 10, and/or 19, as currently amended:
A method, non-transitory computer readable medium and apparatus including a processor, (MISHIN, Abstract, Pg1,Col1.)
executing an incremental Principal Component Analysis (PCA) modeler to build a
PCA model for sensor measurements associated with one or more cooling devices of a location to be monitored; (MISHIN Abstract)
detecting changes at each time step of the sensor measurements (MISHIN, Pg1,Col2,I. Introduction; Pg.5,Fig.4; PG.4,Col1; Pg.4, Col2, B; and Pg. 1 Col1, “automatic detection of changepoints or atypical time series events in very high dimensional sensor data streams”) based on a change in a number of principal components or for when a reconstruction error exceeds a threshold (BHUSHAN Abstract, Pg2Col1, Pg69, Fig.1 with Pg70,Col1, Pg1Col2, Pg.70,Col1, Pg.68-29, §3 and Pg.70,§5.2.2)
and evaluating and observing the changes (MISHIN Pg.4, Col2.) to generate feedback regarding the one or more cooling devices. (HAMILTON, Abstract, [0040], [0137], [0094], and [0097])
However, the best prior art as above, individually or in an obvious combination fails to teach:
“evaluating and observing the changes comprises eliminating unimportant changes by evaluating changes in multiple iterations including a short-term check to determine if a detected change is big enough to be considered, a mid-term check to determine if the detected change is still present and was not just an outlier, and a long-term check to determine if the change is affecting performance after a longer time period has passed, and wherein the feedback is used to automatically adjust operational parameters of the one or more cooling devices in a data center server room.”
Specifically, Examiner notes the detailed sequence describe by terms such as “short-term check”, “mid-term check”, and “long-term check”. In evaluation of this amended limitation, search revealed an additional relevant prior art reference, WENZEL (US 20200379423 A1 ), which Examiner asserts is the closest prior art with respect to the limitation as recited above. WENZEL was included on previous office action as pertinent art of record, but not cited in rejection. WENZEL does teach a first and second time period evaluation of data from sensors ([0008]) over “two data windows” ([0148]) but fails to teach the three-part evaluation process as claimed by Applicant. Moreover, WENZEL recites evaluation based on implemented change rather than monitoring system data ([0016] : “first time period is prior to implementing an energy conservation measure and the second time period is after implementing the energy conservation measure.”) Further search did not reveal additional prior art that would teach individually or in an obvious combination the limitations as noted.
As presented in previous office action, limitations as recited in dependent claims, including amended limitations recited in Claims 2-5, and 11-14 is found in prior art as identified in previous office action, but not such that the deficiencies identified about in Claims 1 and 10 can be overcome. With respect to newly added Claim 20, Examiner finds likewise that prior art is not discovered which would overcome the deficiencies the base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure was included in previous office action (Non-Final rejection dated 01/28/2026).
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 TONI D SAUNCY whose telephone number is (703)756-4589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/TONI D SAUNCY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights