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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign application EP23155887 (filling date 02/09/2023). Certified copy of the foreign priority application has been filed with this application on 03/07/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 02/07/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. A concise explanation of relevance has not been provided for NPL “EP Search Report dated July 12, 2023 based on EP23155887 filed February 9, 2023”. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(q). Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake. So, references character like P1 and P2 need to have lead lines and references character like S1 and S2 need to be underlined.
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.
Claim 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim(s) recite(s), c) performing a first Fourier transform for the first sensor signal and a second Fourier transform for the second sensor signal via a computing apparatus; d) determining a quotient from the first Fourier transform and the second Fourier transform as a transfer function via the computing apparatus. With regards to, performing a first Fourier transform for the first sensor signal and a second Fourier transform for the second sensor signal via a computing apparatus, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mathematical calculation (Fourier transform) and therefore the limitation falls under mathematical concept grouping of abstract idea. With regards to, determining a quotient from the first Fourier transform and the second Fourier transform as a transfer function via the computing apparatus, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a computing apparatus. That is, other than a control information generating unit being claimed as performing this function, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of determining a quotient from the first and second Fourier transform. The mere nominal recitation of a computing apparatus to perform this determination does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, this limitation recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitations directed to, detecting, via a first measurer, a first operating parameter of a reference apparatus which is constructed identically to the technical device, said first operating parameter comprising a time-discrete first sensor signal in a first operating environment and a first permissible operating mode; b) detecting, via a second measuring, a second operating parameter of the reference apparatus comprising a time-discrete second sensor signal in a second operating environment and a second permissible operating mode; and e) generating and training a first model based on the artificial intelligence for the reference apparatus in the first operating environment via the computing apparatus; f) generating a second model based on the artificial intelligence for the technical device in the second operating environment utilizing the first model and applying the transfer function via the computing apparatus; and g) operating the technical device with the second model via the computing apparatus. With regards to detecting, via a first measurer, a first operating parameter of a reference apparatus which is constructed identically to the technical device, said first operating parameter comprising a time-discrete first sensor signal in a first operating environment and a first permissible operating mode; b) detecting, via a second measuring, a second operating parameter of the reference apparatus comprising a time-discrete second sensor signal in a second operating environment and a second permissible operating mode, these limitations are directed to using a measurer as tool to measure operating parameters, which amounts to using the measurer in its ordinary capacity of measuring data. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f). With regards to e) generating and training a first model based on the artificial intelligence for the reference apparatus in the first operating environment via the computing apparatus; f) generating a second model based on the artificial intelligence for the technical device in the second operating environment utilizing the first model and applying the transfer function via the computing apparatus, these limitations merely recite generating and training models without reciting any specific process used in training or generating the models. These limitations amount to a result-oriented solution with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it" (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). With regards to operating the technical device with the second model via the computing apparatus, this limitation merely recites operating the technical device based on data generated using the abstract idea without any limitation on the nature of the technical device or how it is being controlled. This limitation amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" or is no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea. Therefore, this limitation fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites additional limitations directed to, detecting, via a first measurer, a first operating parameter of a reference apparatus which is constructed identically to the technical device, said first operating parameter comprising a time-discrete first sensor signal in a first operating environment and a first permissible operating mode; b) detecting, via a second measuring, a second operating parameter of the reference apparatus comprising a time-discrete second sensor signal in a second operating environment and a second permissible operating mode; and e) generating and training a first model based on the artificial intelligence for the reference apparatus in the first operating environment via the computing apparatus; f) generating a second model based on the artificial intelligence for the technical device in the second operating environment utilizing the first model and applying the transfer function via the computing apparatus; and g) operating the technical device with the second model via the computing apparatus. With regards to detecting, via a first measurer, a first operating parameter of a reference apparatus which is constructed identically to the technical device, said first operating parameter comprising a time-discrete first sensor signal in a first operating environment and a first permissible operating mode; b) detecting, via a second measuring, a second operating parameter of the reference apparatus comprising a time-discrete second sensor signal in a second operating environment and a second permissible operating mode, these limitations are directed to using a measurer as tool to measure operating parameters, which amounts to using the measurer in its ordinary capacity of measuring data. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). With regards to e) generating and training a first model based on the artificial intelligence for the reference apparatus in the first operating environment via the computing apparatus; f) generating a second model based on the artificial intelligence for the technical device in the second operating environment utilizing the first model and applying the transfer function via the computing apparatus, these limitations merely recite generating and training models without reciting any specific process used in training or generating the models. These limitations amount to a result-oriented solution with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it"(see MPEP 2106.05(f)). With regards to operating the technical device with the second model via the computing apparatus, this limitation merely recites operating the technical device based on data generated using the abstract idea without any limitation on the nature of the technical device or how it is being controlled. This limitation amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" or is no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea. Therefore, this limitation does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the judicial exception of claim 1. Claim 2 further recites, wherein the first permissible operating mode corresponds to the second permissible operating mode. This limitation relates the first permissible operating mode which is comprised in the detected first operating parameter to in a corresponding relationship with the second permissible operating mode which is comprised in the detected second operating parameter. However, this limitation does not change or alter the in any way the method step of detecting the operating parameter. Therefore, this limitation is also directed to a mere apply to apply an exception similar to the limitations of claim 1 directed to detecting the first and second operating parameter and therefore it fails to integrate the judicial exception to a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the judicial exception of claim 1. Claim 3 further recites, wherein said applying the transfer function comprises a multiplication in the frequency range. This limitation is an expansion of the mental process of claim 1 which was directed to determining a quotient from the first Fourier transform and the second Fourier transform as a transfer function. This limitation is also directed to a mental process as human mind with the or without the aid of pen and paper can perform a multiple in the frequency range.
Claim 4 and 5 includes similar limitation as claim 1 and is therefore also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of “A computer program product having machine-readable instructions stored therein” in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art encompasses products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se"). In particular, the published specification in ¶0026 recites, “The objects and advantages in accordance with the invention are also achieved by a computer program product having machine-readable instructions stored therein”. The specification does not define the computer program product to have a physical or tangible form (e.g. non-transitory computer readable medium). Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “A computer program product” in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art encompasses program code that do not have a physical or tangible form (see MPEP 2106.03).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-5 would be allowable if these overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 recites, A computer-implemented method for operating a technical device with a model based on artificial intelligence, the method comprising:
a) detecting, via a first measurer, a first operating parameter of a reference apparatus which is constructed identically to the technical device, said first operating parameter comprising a time-discrete first sensor signal in a first operating environment and a first permissible operating mode;
b) detecting, via a second measuring, a second operating parameter of the reference apparatus comprising a time-discrete second sensor signal in a second operating environment and a second permissible operating mode;
c) performing a first Fourier transform for the first sensor signal and a second Fourier transform for the second sensor signal via a computing apparatus;
d) determining a quotient from the first Fourier transform and the second Fourier transform as a transfer function via the computing apparatus;
e) generating and training a first model based on the artificial intelligence for the reference apparatus in the first operating environment via the computing apparatus;
f) generating a second model based on the artificial intelligence for the technical device in the second operating environment utilizing the first model and applying the transfer function via the computing apparatus; and
g) operating the technical device with the second model via the computing apparatus.
A thorough search has been conducted for the subject matter with the most relevant prior art found to be discussed.
Hall (US20200394517A1) in ¶0116 teaches, receiving data quantifying at least a first operating parameter of the first compressor, ¶0118 and ¶0183 teaches, generating data quantifying damage received by the first compressor 18 using the received data quantifying damage received by one or more compressor blades 40, and a damage parameter by applying a Fourier transform. ¶0126-¶0127 teaches training a machine learning algorithm using data quantifying damage received by the first compressor. However, it doesn’t teach the specific method of generating the second model and operating the technical device with the second model as claimed by claim 1.
MOHAN (US20160350194A1) in ¶0034-¶0037 teaches, simulating health management system and acquiring system response. It also teaches, extracting feature vectors from the data by using Fourier Transform. ¶0037 teaches, inputting feature vector in an artificial intelligence network to train artificial intelligence network and deploying the artificial intelligence network on the hardware. However, it doesn’t teach the specific method of generating the second model and operating the technical device with the second model as claimed by claim 1.
Valpola (US20200150601A1) in ¶0046 teaches, re3ceiving first data 330 as an input, the first machine learning model component 310 may be trained with the data so that it may generate a prediction on a state of the target system 110, and also uncertainty estimate of the prediction. ¶0047 teaches, the second machine learning model component 340 of the machine learning system 240 may be trained with second data 330 as the first machine learning model component 310. However, it doesn’t teach the specific method of generating the second model and operating the technical device with the second model as claimed by claim 1.
Walczyk (US20220244682A1) in ¶0113 teaches, detecting and generating vibration dataset by vibration sensors. ¶0115 teaches, Data set collector 710 can provide vibration data sets to data set preparation module 712. Data set preparation module 712 can prepare vibration data sets for being used as input to ML models 714. ¶0116 teaches, data set preparation module 712 performs fast Fourier transforms (FFTs) for each timewave associated with a vibration data set. ¶0117 teaches, as a result of performing the FFTs, FFT spectra can be generated by data set preparation module 712 for a vibration data set. ¶0117 teaches, The FFT spectra can be provided to machine learning models 714 as inputs. However, it doesn’t teach the specific method of generating the second model and operating the technical device with the second model as claimed by claim 1.
No other art could be found which alone or in combination teaches the specific method of generating the second model and operating the technical device with the second model as claimed by claim 1. Claim 1 is therefore allowable over prior art.
Claims 2-3 depends on claim 1 and are therefore also allowable due to their dependency.
Claims 4-5 recite similar limitation as claim 1 and is therefore allowable for the same reason as claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISTIAQUE AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-7087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 10AM -6PM and alternate Fridays.
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, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/ISTIAQUE AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights