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 .
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, 2, 4-9, and 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 1 is directed to method, which is a process and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites generating a product knowledge causal graph comprising: a plurality of nodes of a first type representing a plurality of sensors of a manufacturing system; a plurality of edges of a first type connecting nodes of the first type, the plurality of edges of the first type representing causal relationships between a plurality of sensors in the manufacturing system; a plurality of nodes of a second type representing a plurality of parts and a plurality of equipment constants of the manufacturing system, wherein each of the plurality of parts and the plurality of equipment constants corresponds to at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors; a plurality of edges of a second type representing associations between the nodes of the second type and nodes of the first type; determining a causal strength index matrix corresponding to weights of the edges of the first type; responsive to identifying an anomalous behavior in the sensor data corresponding to at least one of the plurality of sensors, determining a root cause of the anomalous behavior using the product knowledge causal graph; identifying, based on at least a subset of parts data corresponding to the root cause of the anomalous behavior, or a subset of equipment constant data corresponding to the root cause of the anomalous behavior, at least one corrective action for the anomalous behavior. The limitations of claim 1 require observing data from sensors, parts associated with the sensors and equipment constant data to generate a product knowledge causal graph. The claim limitation for determining a causal strength index matrix is disclosed as being determined based on the product knowledge causal graph (Specification, par. 193), which merely requires observing the causal graph and determining weights for causality strength. The limitations of for determining a root cause and identifying at least one corrective action require observing the causal graph or the causal strength index matrix and traversing from an anomaly to the root cause. All of these limitations may be performed by a human mind and therefore fall into the mental processes grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
The additional elements in claim 1 are receiving, from the plurality of sensors of the manufacturing system, sensor data indicative of an anomalous behavior in the manufacturing system; and causing the at least one corrective action to be performed, wherein the at least one corrective action corresponds to a modification to at least one of a part of the plurality of parts of the manufacturing system or an equipment constant of the plurality of equipment constants of the manufacturing system.
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Receiving sensor data is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations for causing a corrective action to be performed require that the corrective action correspond to a modification of at least one part of a manufacturing system or an equipment constant of the manufacturing system. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and are no more than a general link to a technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). When considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide for anything further than their individual functions.
Per step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons. Further, with regard to the limitations for receiving data, the courts have recognized that data gathering in various manners is well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
Claims 2, 4-8, 21 and 22 depend from claim 1 and only recites further details of the abstract idea. Claims 2, 4-8, 21 and 22 do not recite any additional elements. Therefore, claims 2, 4-8, 21 and 22 are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 9 recites an abstract idea and additional elements similar to the abstract idea and additional elements recited in claim 1. Therefore claim 9 is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 11-15 depend from claim 9 and recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 11-15 do not recite any further additional elements. Therefore, claims 11-15 are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 16 recites an abstract idea and additional elements similar to the abstract idea recited in claim 1. Claim 16 recites a further additional element of a memory and a processing device. The recitation of the memory and processor amount to instructions to implement the abstract on a generic computer, which amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). When considered in combination with the other additional elements, the additional elements do not provide for anything further than their individual functions. Therefore, the additional elements in claim 16 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 17-20 depend from claim 16 and recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 17-20 do not recite any further additional elements. Therefore, claims 17-20 are rejected for the same reason.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 8 July 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Application No. 18988697 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments, see pages 17-19, filed 8 July 2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-3, 9-10 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and claims 4-8, 11-15 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 8 July 2026 with regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that each of the claims integrates such recitation of a judicial exception into a practical application and therefore, should be deemed to be not “directed to” the patent-ineligible judicial exception in accordance with the second prong of the Revised Step 2A. Applicant states that the claimed embodiments represent a specific improvement to diagnostic technology for manufacturing system that improves accuracy of corrective actions for sensor anomalies. Referring to the limitations for receiving sensor data from a manufacturing system and a causing a corrective action, which involves, a modification to the part or equipment constant of the manufacturing system, changing how the manufacturing system physically behaves, Applicant states that these limitations reflect a specific, practical application of any alleged judicial exception. However, the limitations for receiving sensor data is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). And the limitations for causing a corrective action to be performed require that the corrective action correspond to a modification of at least one part of a manufacturing system or an equipment constant of the manufacturing system. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and are no more than a general link to a technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
With regard to Step 2B, Applicant states that claim 1, when considered as a whole with its added limitations is not well-understood, routine and conventional. However, If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility (See MPEP 2106.05(d), second paragraph). Furter, when evaluating whether additional elements contribute to an “inventive concept”, additional elements or combinations of elements that are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity should be re-evaluated to determine if the insignificant extra-solution activity is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (See MPEP 2106.05, subsection II). The additional element found to be insignificant extra-solution activity is the claim limitation for receiving from the plurality of sensors of the manufacturing system, sensor data. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and as discussed above, the courts have found that data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in various manners is well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights