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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Drawings
In view of the applicant’s amendments of 06/22/26, the drawings of 06/02/23 are now accepted.
Examiner’s Note - 35 USC § 101
The applicant’s 06/22/26 amendments have overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Independent claim 1 has been amended to include the following limitations, which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
automatically generating a control signal for controlling operation of the at least one component of the technical system in response to the remaining service life reaching or falling below a predefined minimum remaining service life (This limitation effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)). Specifically, it transforms the one component of the technical system from a non-controlled state to a controlled state. As seen in the next limitation, the controlled state is a “restricted mode” that is a real-world transformation to the at least one component. The limitation is therefore indicative of integration into a practical application.)
operating the at least one component in a restricted mode when the control signal is generated (This limitation is indicative of integration into a practical application because it applies any judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 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.
Independent claim 1 has been amended to include the following limitations:
determining a first representation of the first input signal using an encoder of a first machine learning system by processing the first input signal through the encoder to generate an output from the encoder that is the first representation (claim 1, lines 7-9) (emphasis mine)
determining the remaining service life based on (i) the first representation, and (ii) plurality of second representations, wherein the plurality of second representations is determined by the encoder based on a plurality of second input signals, and wherein a corresponding remaining service life is assigned to each second representation of the plurality of second representations (claim 1, lines 10-14)
wherein the encoder is included in a variational autoencoder (claim 1, line 20)
wherein the output from the encoder includes (i) a first value characterizing an expected value and (ii) a second value characterizing a variance (claim 1, lines 21-22)
wherein the first value and the second value are concatenated into a vector (claim 1, lines 23), and
wherein the vector is the first representation (claim 1, line 24)
The claimed amendments are considered indefinite because multiple items are labeled as “the first representation.”
Claim 1, line 9 states, “the encoder that is the first representation,” while claim 1, line 24 states, “the vector is the first representation.” It is not clear what the first representation is.
The closest support for the amended limitations appears to be in paragraph 00013 of the applicant’s original specification, which states, “It is also possible for the first machine learning system to include a variational auto encoder, wherein the encoder of the variational auto encoder can be understood as the encoder of the first machine learning system. In this case, the encoder of the auto encoder can receive the input signal and determine an output comprising at least one first value which characterizes an expected value and comprising at least one second value which characterizes a variance. The first and second value or the first and the second values can preferably be concatenated into a vector, wherein the vector can be provided as the first representation. It is also possible that the vector undergoes at least one post-processing step and the post-processed vector is used as the first representation.”
Based on this disclosure in paragraph 00013 of the applicant’s original specification, it would appear that “the first representation” in claim 1, line 9 is meant to be the same “the first representation in claim 1, line 24. However, claim 1, line 9 clearly states that the first representation is the “output from the encoder,” and claim 1, lines 21-23 clearly state that “the output from the encoder includes (i) a first value characterizing an expected value, and (ii) a second value characterizing a variance, wherein the first value and the second value are concatenated into a vector ...” Here, it shows that the first and second values collectively represent the encoder “output,” and that output precedes the concatenation into a vector. In other words, it is unclear whether the “first representation” is the pre-concatenation first and second values of the encoder or the post-concatenation vector.
It is also not entirely clear whether claim 1, lines 20-24 were intended to further narrow the encoder described in claim 1, lines 7-9, at the same time that the encoder in lines 7-9 is executed, or whether lines 20-24 were intended to represent the same encoder of the first machine learning system but operating at a different period of time, after the steps presented in claim 1, lines 10-19. Because claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method, and because lines 20-24 are sequentially placed after lines 10-19, it raises ambiguity about whether there is a sequence of events where the operations of lines 7-9 are executed, then the operations of lines 10-19 are executed, and then the operations of lines 20-24 are executed.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret that lines 20-24 of claim 1 are meant to further narrow the encoder in lines 7-9 of claim 1, at the time the operation of lines 7-9 are executed. However, that still leaves the apparent discrepancy about whether the first representation is the first and second values output from the encoder or the vector that results from the concatenation of the first and second values.
All other claims depend on claim 1. They are also rejected as a result of their dependency.
In addition, dependent claims 9-10 still include “and/or” language, which is considered indefinite. The applicant is suggested to choose either “and’ or “or”.
Examiner’s Note - Allowable Subject Matter
Independent claim 1 has been amended to include the below limitations, which when considered as a whole, were not found, taught, suggested, or disclosed in the prior art. Please note that the claims cannot be allowed until the above 112(b) rejection is overcome.
automatically generating a control signal for controlling operation of the at least one component of the technical system in response to the remaining service life reaching or falling below a predefined minimum remaining service life
operating the at least one component in a restricted mode when the control signal is generated
wherein the encoder is included in a variational autoencoder
wherein the output from the encoder includes (i) a first value characterizing an expected value, and (ii) a second value characterizing a variance
wherein the first value and the second value are concatenated into a vector
and wherein the vector is the first representation
Upon performing an update search, art was found that arguably taught, suggested, disclosed, or rendered obvious, elements of these limitations, in a vacuum.
For example, Johnson et al (US Pat 10417614) arguably discloses, or renders obvious:
automatically generating a control signal for controlling operation of the at least one component of the technical system in response to the remaining service life reaching or falling below a predefined minimum remaining service life (figure 1F; column 22, lines 18-50 state, “FIG. 1F graphically depicts the relationship between the asset, for example an aircraft engine, system rate of power output 110, time 105, and useful life consumption … The physical state probabilistic estimations of one or more parts and subsystems are updated with these assessment points and activities. At an operational segment 126, the corresponding life consumption may be extremely high, yet may be reduced by a control setting which lowers system efficiency, such as allowing more infernal airflow or reduced surface temperature and thus increased specific fuel consumption, in exchange for a reduced 131 life consumption rate for the same power output or less power output but longer duty cycle or other tradeoff … to compare various operating scenarios and automatically select 154 the tradeoffs of operating efficiency vs life consumption vs asset assignment for revenue duty, according to the risk and value management preferences of one or more stakeholders 131.” Johnson et al illustrates a scenario, where, due to an assessment of remaining service life and a preference to preserve remaining service life, an operational mode that restricts certain performance variables in order to extend remaining service life, will be selected.)
operating the at least one component in a restricted mode when the control signal is generated (figure 1F; column 22, lines 18-50 state, “FIG. 1F graphically depicts the relationship between the asset, for example an aircraft engine, system rate of power output 110, time 105, and useful life consumption … The physical state probabilistic estimations of one or more parts and subsystems are updated with these assessment points and activities. At an operational segment 126, the corresponding life consumption may be extremely high, yet may be reduced by a control setting which lowers system efficiency, such as allowing more infernal airflow or reduced surface temperature and thus increased specific fuel consumption, in exchange for a reduced 131 life consumption rate for the same power output or less power output but longer duty cycle or other tradeoff … to compare various operating scenarios and automatically select 154 the tradeoffs of operating efficiency vs life consumption vs asset assignment for revenue duty, according to the risk and value management preferences of one or more stakeholders 131.” Johnson et al illustrates a scenario, where, due to an assessment of remaining service life and a preference to preserve remaining service life, an operational mode that restricts certain performance variables in order to extend remaining service life, will be selected.)
Yoon et al NPL (Yoon, A.S.; Lee, T.; Lim, Y.; Jung, D.; Kang, P.; Kim, D.; Park, K.; and Choi Y. – “Semi-supervised Learning with Deep Generative Models for Asset Failure Prediction”; Workshop on Machine Learning for Prognostics and Health Management. August 13-17, 2017, Halifax, Nova Scotia - Canada) discloses using a variational autoencoder for remaining useful life estimation (abstract; page 2, column 1, paragraphs 3-4; page 3, column 2, section entitled, “2.3 Variational Autoencoder (VAE)”; page 7, column 1, section entitled, “4.3.1 Reconstruction with Variational Autoencoder”).
However, Yoon et al NPL does not disclose:
wherein the output from the encoder includes (i) a first value characterizing an expected value, and (ii) a second value characterizing a variance
wherein the first value and the second value are concatenated into a vector
and wherein the vector is the first representation
Hou et al NPL (Hou, Guisheng; Xu, Shuo; Zhou, Nan; Yang, Lei, and Fu, Quanhao – “Remaining Useful Life Estimation Using Deep Convolutional Generative Adversarial Networks Based on an Autoencoder Scheme.”; Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience; Volume 2020, Article ID 9601389, 14 pages.) incorporates the teachings of Yoon et al NPL by reference, by stating, “Moreover, Yoon et al. [26] described a semilearning approach that uses nonlinear embedding based on the variational autoencoder (VAE) model … different deep learning tools are combined.” (page 3, column 2, paragraphs 2-3).
Hou et al NPL also discloses concatenation vector representations (page 4, column 2, lines preceding equations (1) and (2)). However, these concatenation vector teachings are not clearly disclosed in the context of a variational autoencoder and not in the context where the output from the encoder includes (i) a first value characterizing an expected value, and (ii) a second value characterizing a variance.
Therefore, even though elements of the claimed limitations were found, taught, suggested, or disclosed in the prior art, not all of the limitations were found, taught, suggested, or disclosed in the prior art, especially not when the claimed limitations were considered as a whole.
Claims 2-17 depend on claim 1. As such, they would also represent allowable subject matter, if the above 112(b) rejection is overcome.
Conclusion
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 LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 PM.
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, ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ can be reached at (571)272-2619. 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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 09/09/26
Prosecution Insights