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 .
This action is in response to communications filed on 05/25/2023. Claims 1-14 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted was filed on 05/25/2023. 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
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 (e.g. claim 14 recites “means for acquiring… means for generating… means for re-training… means for performing…). 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.
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 1-14 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.
As per claim 1, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the maintenance output for the new trouble” in line 8 (e.g. only “maintenance executed for the trouble” is previously recited, not “for the new trouble”). It is unclear whether “the information on the maintenance” in the 2nd to last line is referring to the “information on maintenance executed for the trouble”, the “information on the maintenance output for the new trouble”, or is different. As such, the claim is indefinite. Independent claims 13 and 14 also recite the same limitations and therefore have the same problem. Due at least to their dependency upon claim 1, dependent claims 2-12 also lack written description (e.g. note that dependent claims 2-12 also recite “the information on the maintenance”).
Further as per claim 3, the claim recites “a ratio of the information on the maintenance presented for the past trouble”. It is noted that a “ratio” is by definition between two entities. However, the claims only recite that the ratio is of “the information on the maintenance presented for the past trouble”, which is one entity. As such, the claim is indefinite. This similarly applies to claim 6.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite systems and a medium associated with acquire, generating, re-training and performing.
The limitations “acquire… generate… perform…” as recited in claim 1 are each a process, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covering performance of the limitations in the mind or by pen and paper (See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1366, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018)) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or a plurality of processors”, the limitation “acquire information related to a trouble and information on maintenance executed for the trouble” in the context of the claim encompasses the user making observations. Other than reciting “one or a plurality of processors”, the limitation “generate a learning model to which the information related to the trouble is input and from which the information on the maintenance is output” in the context of the claim encompasses the user making evaluations (e.g. creating a formula). Other than reciting “one or a plurality of processors” and “where the learning model is re-trained”, the limitation “perform weighting on the information on the maintenance in a case” in the context of the claim encompasses the user making determinations. If a claimed limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements. The claim recites “one or a plurality of processors”. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations “re-train the learning model based on information related to a new trouble and information on the maintenance output for the new trouble” and “where the learning model is re-trained” amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are no more than a generic computer component and/or field of use. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 13 and 14 also recite similar claim language as claim 1, and thus have the same issues. It is noted, with respect to claim 13, that the claim recites “non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing one or a plurality of processors” to perform the limitations. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. See MPEP 2106.05(f)). It is noted, with respect to claim 14, that the claim generally recites “means for” perform the limitations. Therefore, the elements are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, the claim further describes performing weighting, which is a mental step (encompassing a user making a determination) and does not include any additional elements.
Regarding claim 3, the claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, the claim further describes assigning weight, which is a mental step (encompassing a user making a determination) and does not include any additional elements.
Regarding claim 4, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, the claim further describes performing weighting, which is a mental step (encompassing a user making a determination) and does not include any additional elements.
Regarding claim 5, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, the claim further describes performing weighting, which is a mental step (encompassing a user making a determination) and does not include any additional elements.
Regarding claim 6, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, the claim further describes assigning weight, which is a mental step (encompassing a user making a determination) and does not include any additional elements.
Regarding claim 7, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, the claim merely further describes the information, which is part of the mental steps and does not include any additional elements. This similarly applies to claims 8-12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster et al. (US 20190123931 A1) in view of Brinkmann et al. (US 20200026632 A1).
As per claim 1, Schuster teaches a system comprising: one or a plurality of processors (e.g. in paragraph 64, “memory 408 is communicably connected to processor 406 via processing circuit 404 and includes computer code for executing (e.g., by processing circuit 404 and/or processor 406) one or more processes described herein”) configured to:
acquire information related to a trouble and information on maintenance executed for the trouble (e.g. in paragraphs 89 and 100, “receive a feature vector comprising data of interest (e.g., features) from vibration dataset 602 as input… labels can be applied to vibration dataset 602. These labels can be obtained from historical data and can include machine conditions (e.g., alert condition), component conditions (e.g., motor 504 in alarm condition), root cause faults (e.g., based on maintenance records), and appropriate maintenance procedures”);
generate a learning model to which the information related to the trouble is input and from which the information on the maintenance is output (e.g. in paragraphs 89, 100, and 103, “Models 610 can receive a feature vector comprising data of interest (e.g., features) from vibration dataset 602 as input… machine learning models can be designed… labels can be applied to vibration dataset 602. These labels can be obtained from historical data and can include machine conditions (e.g., alert condition), component conditions (e.g., motor 504 in alarm condition), root cause faults… output of models 610 can include…suggested maintenance actions”);
re-train the learning model based on information related to a new trouble and information on the maintenance output for the new trouble (e.g. in paragraphs 89-90 and 100, “As more data is collected and associated with a specific component, machine learning models 610 can be retrained with the new data in order to achieve even better performance… machine conditions (e.g., alert condition), component conditions (e.g., motor 504 in alarm condition), root cause faults (e.g., based on maintenance records), and appropriate maintenance procedures”),
but does not specifically teach perform weighting on the information on the maintenance in a case where the learning model is re-trained.
However, Brinkmann teaches perform weighting on information on a maintenance in a case where a learning model is (re)trained (e.g. in paragraphs 17, 40-41, 45, 48, 55, and 65, “When the remedy recommendation system 110 generates another solution proposal, the remedy recommendation system 110 may give the previously rejected proposal a lower score [i.e. weighting] (based on user feedback), when compared to other solution proposals… user feedback…may be provided to individual machine learning algorithms…for re-training… remedy the failure… recommended solution including the tasks may be sent to a user equipment 167 associated with a user, such as a maintenance worked… user feedback scoring… determine a score… trained to determine relevance of a remedy recommendation based on user feedback (quantity, or degree, of positive feedback, quantity of negative feedback)”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Schuster to include the teachings of Brinkmann because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of assessing relevance of maintenance.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and the combination further teaches perform weighting on the information on the maintenance based on a fact that information on the maintenance is presented for a past trouble (e.g. Brinkmann, in paragraphs 40, 55 and 65, “When the remedy recommendation system 110 generates another solution proposal, the remedy recommendation system 110 may give the previously rejected proposal a lower score [i.e. weighting] (based on user feedback), when compared to other solution proposals… quantity of negative feedback”; note: feedback is given for past troubles).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and the combination further teaches assign a smaller weight to the information on the maintenance as a ratio of the information on the maintenance presented for the past trouble is increased (e.g. Brinkmann, in paragraphs 40, 55 and 65, “When the remedy recommendation system 110 generates another solution proposal, the remedy recommendation system 110 may give the previously rejected proposal a lower score [i.e. weighting] (based on user feedback), when compared to other solution proposals… score [of] a remedy recommendation… quantity of negative feedback” and formula (1) in paragraph 55 which is a ratio and becomes smaller with increase in “quantity of negative feedback”; note: feedback is given for past troubles).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and the combination further teaches perform weighting on the information on the maintenance based on a result of execution based on information on the maintenance presented for a past trouble (e.g. Brinkmann, in paragraphs 40, 55, and 65, “When the remedy recommendation system 110 generates another solution proposal, the remedy recommendation system 110 may give the previously rejected proposal a lower score [i.e. weighting] (based on user feedback), when compared to other solution proposals… score [of] a remedy recommendation… quantity of negative feedback” associated with “Was the solution and tasks in the work order notification helpful”, i.e. result of execution; note: feedback is given for past troubles).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated and the combination further teaches perform weighting on the presented information on the maintenance according to a status of a case where the trouble is resolved by the maintenance executed based on the information on the maintenance presented for the past trouble, and a case where the trouble is resolved by executing maintenance different from the presented information of the maintenance (e.g. Brinkmann, in paragraphs 40, 45, 55 and 65, “When the remedy recommendation system 110 generates another solution proposal, the remedy recommendation system 110 may give the previously rejected proposal a lower score [i.e. weighting] (based on user feedback), when compared to other solution proposals… more similar a reference [i.e. past] notification is to the current [i.e. different] notification”).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the information related to the trouble is information related to an abnormality of equipment and the information on the maintenance is information on a part to be replaced (e.g. Schuster, in paragraph 101, “abnormal behavior of motor”; Brinkmann, in paragraphs 17 and 29, “physical assets (e.g., machines, parts, production lines, consumables, and/or the like)… maintenance of the assets including…replacing parts (e.g., components of the assets)… notification of failure”).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the information related to the trouble is information related to an abnormality of equipment and the information on the maintenance is information on a part to be replaced (e.g. Schuster, in paragraph 101, “abnormal behavior of motor”; Brinkmann, in paragraphs 17 and 29, “physical assets (e.g., machines, parts, production lines, consumables, and/or the like)… maintenance of the assets including…replacing parts (e.g., components of the assets)… notification of failure”).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the information related to the trouble is information related to an abnormality of equipment and the information on the maintenance is information on a part to be replaced (e.g. Schuster, in paragraph 101, “abnormal behavior of motor”; Brinkmann, in paragraphs 17 and 29, “physical assets (e.g., machines, parts, production lines, consumables, and/or the like)… maintenance of the assets including…replacing parts (e.g., components of the assets)… notification of failure”).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the information related to the trouble is information related to an abnormality of equipment and the information on the maintenance is information on a part to be replaced (e.g. Schuster, in paragraph 101, “abnormal behavior of motor”; Brinkmann, in paragraphs 17 and 29, “physical assets (e.g., machines, parts, production lines, consumables, and/or the like)… maintenance of the assets including…replacing parts (e.g., components of the assets)… notification of failure”).
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the information related to the trouble is information related to an abnormality of equipment and the information on the maintenance is information on a part to be replaced (e.g. Schuster, in paragraph 101, “abnormal behavior of motor”; Brinkmann, in paragraphs 17 and 29, “physical assets (e.g., machines, parts, production lines, consumables, and/or the like)… maintenance of the assets including…replacing parts (e.g., components of the assets)… notification of failure”).
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the information related to the trouble is information related to an abnormality of equipment and the information on the maintenance is information on a part to be replaced (e.g. Schuster, in paragraph 101, “abnormal behavior of motor”; Brinkmann, in paragraphs 17 and 29, “physical assets (e.g., machines, parts, production lines, consumables, and/or the like)… maintenance of the assets including…replacing parts (e.g., components of the assets)… notification of failure”).
Claim 13 is the medium claim corresponding to system claim 1, and is rejected under the same reasons set forth and the combination further teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing one or a plurality of processors to realize a function (e.g. Schuster, in paragraph 64, “memory 408 is communicably connected to processor 406 via processing circuit 404 and includes computer code for executing (e.g., by processing circuit 404 and/or processor 406) one or more processes described herein”).
Claim 14 corresponds to system claim 1, and is rejected under the same reasons set forth and the combination further teaches means (e.g. Schuster, in paragraph 64, “memory 408 is communicably connected to processor 406 via processing circuit 404 and includes computer code for executing (e.g., by processing circuit 404 and/or processor 406) one or more processes described herein”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster et al. (US 20190123931 A1) in view of Brinkmann et al. (US 20200026632 A1) and further in view of LuVogt et al. (US 20130290905 A1).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and the combination further teaches assign a weight to the presented information on the maintenance on a basis of the case where the trouble is resolved by executing the maintenance different from the information on the maintenance presented for the past trouble (e.g. Brinkmann, in paragraphs 40, 45, 55 and 65, “When the remedy recommendation system 110 generates another solution proposal, the remedy recommendation system 110 may give the previously rejected proposal a lower score [i.e. weight] (based on user feedback), when compared to other solution proposals… more similar a reference [i.e. past] notification is to the current [i.e. different] notification”),
but does not specifically teach assigning a smaller weight on a basis as a ratio is higher.
However, LuVogt teaches assigning a smaller weight to other possible recommendations as a ratio of a different recommendation is higher (e.g. in paragraph 139, “incorporate feedback from such user actions and update content recommendations provided to the user… the item type mixture weight of the particular type of content selected by the user is increased and correspondingly, the item type mixture weights of other content types can be decreased so that the ratio the content type selected by the user in the overall content transmitted to the user is increased”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of the combination to include the teachings of LuVogt because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of providing more relevant recommendations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For example,
Clark (US 20190294922 A1) teaches “The percent of solutions valid is a metric for what percentage of the proposed or suggested solutions for the machine learning algorithm are valid, for example, if only two-thirds of the total solutions are valid then the algorithm with more total solutions may be worse than another algorithm that has fewer solutions but a higher percent valid. Additionally, this is a metric that is updated over time as additional solutions are validated in additional iterations of the process” (e.g. in paragraphs 49-50).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1399. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, 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 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.
/W.W/Examiner, Art Unit 2144 01/24/2026
/TAMARA T KYLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2144