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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In FIG. 1, boxes or simple shapes are labeled only with reference numbers, without descriptive legends. The Examiner directs the applicant to 37 C.F.R. 1.84(n) and 1.84(o) which state, “Graphical drawing symbols may be used for conventional elements when appropriate” while “[o]ther symbols which are not universally recognized may be used, subject to approval by the Office” and that “[s]uitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing”. Since the boxes or simple shapes in FIG. 1 are not universally recognized for the elements they represent, the Examiner may require descriptive legends for better understanding of the drawings. See MPEP 608.02.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “112” has been used to designate both communication channels 112 ([0017], [0018] and FIG. 1) and historic preventative maintenance (PM) data 112 ([0019], [0020], [0022] and FIG. 2). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 400 ([0026]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0033], “RAM 510” should be --RAM 512-- to correct a typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 8-10, “1) replace the gas monitoring detector if the variance exceeds a predetermined value, 2) re-test the gas monitoring detector if the variance does not match and does not exceed the predetermined value” should be --1) replace the gas monitoring detector if the variance exceeds a predetermined value, and 2) re-test the gas monitoring detector if the variance does not match and does not exceed the predetermined value-- for better clarity.
In claim 4, line 3, “the same gas detector” should be --a same gas detector-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 5, line 3, “wherein the AI model is operable to tune a level of acceptable variance from the characteristic response trend signature further based on degradation percentage over time” should be --wherein the AI model is operable to tune a level of acceptable variance from the characteristic response trend signature based on degradation percentage over time-- for better clarity (claim 5 depends on claim 2, not claim 4).
In claim 9, line 9-11, “1) replacement of the gas monitoring detector if the variance exceeds a predetermined value, 2) re-testing of the gas monitoring detector if the variance does not match and does not exceed the predetermined value” should be --1) replacement of the gas monitoring detector if the variance exceeds a predetermined value, and 2) re-testing of the gas monitoring detector if the variance does not match and does not exceed the predetermined value-- for better clarity.
In claim 12, lines 2-3, “the same gas detector” should be --a same gas detector-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 13, lines 1-2, “a level of acceptable variance” should be --the level of acceptable variance-- to avoid creating another antecedent basis (see claim 12 for the antecedent basis).
The other claim(s) not discussed above are objected to for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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: “an alignment module” plus function in claim 2.
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. Particularly, “an alignment module” plus function is interpreted as software program, or equivalents, for the function (see specification [0023], and [0028]).
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.
MPEP 2106 outlines a two-part analysis for Subject Matter Eligibility as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Step 2, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis. Abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? No. The claim is to a system comprising an analyzer, an anomaly detector, a recommender, and a report generator. These elements can be computer programs or routines (“It will be understood that blocks and/or combinations of blocks in the illustration, as well as methods or steps or acts or processes described herein, can be implemented by a computer program”; see [0028]). This is computer program per se, which is not one of the statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106.03.I.
The claim is not eligible because the system comprises only non-eligible elements. Claims 2-8 are similarly rejected for not being directed to a statutory subject matter (step 1- No).
For the sake of identifying other issues, further analysis steps are conducted as below.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes). The claim recites:
1. A gas monitoring detector healthfulness tracking system comprising:
an analyzer operable to apply an artificial intelligence (AI) model to determine a characteristic response trend signature from received preventative maintenance (PM) data and maintenance tracking data;
an anomaly detector operable to detect an anomalous field response characteristic of a gas monitoring detector from received PM field data, the anomalous field response characteristic representing a variance from the characteristic response trend signature;
a recommender providing a recommendation to 1) replace the gas monitoring detector if the variance exceeds a predetermined value, 2) re-test the gas monitoring detector if the variance does not match and does not exceed the predetermined value; and
a report generator for reporting the recommendation of the recommender.
The above bold-faced limitations are directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper).
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites additional elements as underlined above. The recommender and report generator are to output certain information as a result of the abstract idea. They are insignificant extra-solution activities to facilitate the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the additional element(s) in the claim are insignificant extra-solution activities. Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 is directed to a statutory subject matter (i.e., a process; step 1-Yes), but is similarly rejected by analogy to claim 1 under step 2. The recitation of “a processor” is to invoke a generic computer for its conventional computer functionalities to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). It is insufficiently to transform the claim into an eligible one.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16 when analyzed as a whole respectively are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they either extend (or add more details to) the abstract idea or the additional recited limitation(s) (if any) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as discussed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that sufficiently integrates the abstract idea into a practical application of, or makes the claims significantly more than, the judicial exception (abstract idea). The additional element(s) (if any) are mere instructions to apply an except, field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities (applied to Step 2A_Prong Two and Step 2B; see MPEP 2016.05(f)-(h)) and/or well-understood, routine, or conventional (applied to Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to facilitate the application of the abstract idea.
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 1-4, 6-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marathe et al. ("CurrentSense: A novel approach for fault and drift detection in environmental IoT sensors" IoTDI ’21, May 18-21, 2021; hereinafter “Marathe”).
Regarding claim 1, Marathe teaches a gas monitoring detector healthfulness tracking system (i.e., “CurrentSense can be used to detect faults in other important environmental sensors such as 𝐶𝑂2, multi-gas and temperature sensors”; see p. 94, col. 1, ¶ 4) comprising:
an analyzer operable to apply an artificial intelligence (AI) model (i.e., the algorithms for generating the feature dictionary discussed below) to determine a characteristic response trend signature from received preventative maintenance (PM) data (i.e., “By sampling the current drawn by the sensor we can derive a unique electrical characteristic fingerprint that differs between working, faulty, and drifted sensors”; see p. 93, col. 2, ¶ 3; “We then calculate the mean and standard deviation for each of the 128 FFT features to derive a feature dictionary… We note that the process of collecting the fingerprints is carried out in a lab environment and takes just few minutes for each sensor”; see p. 97, col. 2 ¶ 6) and maintenance tracking data (tracking information such as time or device ID are implied or obvious for tracking the samples from each sensor);
an anomaly detector operable to detect an anomalous field response characteristic of a gas monitoring detector from received PM field data, the anomalous field response characteristic representing a variance from the characteristic response trend signature (i.e., “we first compute the z-score or the standardized score for each raw FFT feature [12]. We then compute the Euclidean distance between the feature vector comprising of calculated z-scores and zero vector”; see p. 97, col. 2, ¶ 7);
a recommender indicate a sensor fault in the gas monitoring detector if the variance exceeds a predetermined value (i.e., “if the distance between test features and the dictionary is greater then 3 STD, we classify it as faulty”; see p. 97, col. 2, ¶ 8), 2) re-test the gas monitoring detector (i.e., “The fingerprint is then measured periodically in a device deployed in the field and compared against the baseline”; see p. 94, col. 1, ¶ 2) if the variance does not match and does not exceed the predetermined value (i.e., periodic monitoring the sensor when it is not yet identified as a faulty one; see id.); and
Marathe does not explicitly disclose (see only the underlined):
a recommender providing a recommendation to 1) replace the gas monitoring detector if the variance exceeds a predetermined value, 2) re-test the gas monitoring detector if the variance does not match and does not exceed the predetermined value; and
a report generator for reporting the recommendation of the recommender.
However, it is well-known to recommend replacing a faulty sensor (such as the gas sensor) to prevent inaccurate sensor readings. It is also well-known to communicate or report to users about the recommended actions upon device test results (such as, “need replacement”, or “routine inspection”, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marathe to configure the recommender providing a recommendation to 1) replace the gas monitoring detector if the variance exceeds a predetermined value, 2) re-test the gas monitoring detector if the variance does not match and does not exceed the predetermined value; and provide a report generator for reporting the recommendation of the recommender, as claimed. The rationale would be to inform the users to timely replace a faulty sensor or to continue the periodic monitoring/testing of the sensor, so as to ensure accurate sensor readings.
Regarding claim 2, Marathe further teaches:
(i.e., “By sampling the current drawn by the sensor we can derive a unique electrical characteristic fingerprint that differs between working, faulty, and drifted sensors”; see p. 93, col. 2, ¶ 3; “We note that the process of collecting the fingerprints is carried out in a lab environment and takes just few minutes for each sensor”; see p. 97, col. 2 ¶ 6).
Marathe does not explicitly disclose (see only the underlined):
an alignment module operable to ascertain that the PM field data is obtained from a PM test that is sufficiently faithful to prior tests and protocols.
However, it is well-known to associate data with its source, such as the sensor, using an index or sensor ID. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marathe to provide an alignment module operable to ascertain (e.g., associating sensor data with a respective sensor ID) that the PM field data is obtained from a PM test that is sufficiently faithful to prior tests and protocols, as claimed. The rationale would be to ensure the data for each sensor are distinguishable from the other sensors, so that the fingerprints for each sensor can be established respectively.
Regarding claim 3, Marathe further teaches:
wherein variance from the characteristic response trend signature is reported as degradation of a gas detector (i.e., “We then compute the Euclidean distance between the feature vector comprising of calculated z-scores and zero vector. If this distance is within a certain threshold (3 standard deviation (STD)) we classify the sensor as working, otherwise faulty”; see p. 97, col. 2, ¶ 7).
Regarding claim 4, Marathe further teaches:
wherein the AI model is operable to tune a level of acceptable variance from the characteristic response trend signature based on several test results (i.e., “We then compute the Euclidean distance between the feature vector comprising of calculated z-scores and zero vector. If this distance is within a certain threshold (3 standard deviation (STD)) we classify the sensor as working, otherwise faulty”; see p. 97, col. 2, ¶ 7) of the same gas detector (i.e., “collecting the fingerprints is carried out in a lab environment and takes just few minutes for each sensor”; see p. 97, col. 2, ¶ 6; this indicates a threshold for each same sensor).
Regarding claim 6, Marathe further teaches:
wherein the predetermined value is about 3 standard deviation.
Marathe does not explicitly disclose (see only the underlined):
wherein the predetermined value is about 20%.
The difference is the selection of an appropriate threshold for the variance. Using a percentage for a threshold variance is well-known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marathe such that the predetermined value is about 20%, as claimed. The rationale would be to optimize the range of threshold variance according to the application environment or circumstance using a known type of threshold representation (i.e., percentage).
Regarding claim 7, Marathe further teaches:
wherein the predetermined value is changeable by the AI model (i.e., “We then compute the Euclidean distance between the feature vector comprising of calculated z-scores and zero vector. If this distance is within a certain threshold (3 standard deviation (STD)) we classify the sensor as working, otherwise faulty”; see p. 97, col. 2, ¶ 7).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Marathe does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the predetermined value is changeable by the AI model based on historical failures.
However, it is well-known that the selection of a fault determination threshold affect the detection rate of faults. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marathe such that the predetermined value is changeable by the AI model based on historical failures, as claimed. The rationale would be to allowed users to tune the threshold based on the observations of detections (e.g., from data of historical failures), so as to adjust the detection standards according to users’ preference (i.e., more stringent or more lenient).
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 1 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 2 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 3 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 4 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 6 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 7 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 8 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Notes
Claims 5 and 13 distinguish over the closest prior art of record as discussed below.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the features: “wherein the AI model is operable to tune a level of acceptable variance from the characteristic response trend signature further based on degradation percentage over time,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Marathe does not teach or suggest the above indicated features as claimed.
Goh et al. (US 20180231394 A1) teaches a method for recognizing (and/or predicting) failures of sensors used in monitoring gas turbines, involving applying a sparse coding process to collected sensor readings and defining L-1 norm residuals from the sparse coding process as indicative of a potential sensor problem. Goh does not teach or suggest the above indicated features as claimed.
BRISCOE et al. (US 20230349874 A1) teaches a method for monitoring gas sensor sensitivity, involving calculating a trend of sensitivity for the gas detector over time based on received responses and corresponding time values and determining a renewal time when the calculated trend intersects a predetermined value. BRISCOE does not teach or suggest the above indicated features as claimed.
Gotou et al. (US 20220044503 A1) teaches a method of determining abnormality in an exhaust gas sensor, involving determining that the exhaust gas sensor has abnormality when a responsiveness calculated by a responsiveness determination unit is lower than a predetermined responsiveness threshold. Gotou does not teach or suggest the above indicated features as claimed.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Whitney et al. (US 20180291832 A1) teaches a method to detect and mitigate sensor degradation in an automobile system, involving analyzing patterns of output signal data compared to signal data from a nominal operating sensor or actuator using an artificial intelligence program.
Schuster et al. (US 6741919 B1) teaches a method for detecting an impending failure of a process sensor, involving comparing an output noise component to a historical sensor output noise signature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857