CTNF 18/453,337 CTNF 78412 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a machine (claim 1, a system) or a process (claim 8, a method) or a manufacture (claim 9, a non-transitory machine-readable medium), which are statutory categories. However, evaluating claim 1 , under Step 2A , Prong One , the claim is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea using the grouping of mental process. The limitations include: collect sound information about sounds occurring in a monitored apparatus ; store collected sound information together with characteristic information about the collected sound information; store, when collected sound information is transmitted to a set external apparatus, characteristic information pertaining to the sound information transmitted to the external apparatus; and select and transmit to the external apparatus, when a piece of sound information is selected from among stored sound information and is to be transmitted to the external apparatus, another piece of sound information, without selecting sound information having the same characteristic information as the characteristic information of the sound information that was transmitted to the external apparatus within a preset period in the past . Collecting sound information, storing the sound information together with characteristic information corresponding to previously transmitted sound information, and selecting sound information for transmission based on whether sound information having the same characteristic information was transmitted within a preset period, These limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe collecting, analyzing, comparing, and selecting information based on rules , which is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (e.g., observing sounds, categorizing them, tracking previously reported categories, and deciding not to report the same category again within a time period). Such activities fall within the category of abstract idea identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception . Next , Step 2A , Prong Two evaluates whether additional elements of the claim “integrate the abstract idea into a practical application” in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements “information processing system” including “a processor”, “a monitored apparatus” and “transmission to an external apparatus” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely performs generic data processing functions (collecting, storing, comparing, and selecting data). The monitored apparatus is only a source of data and does not impose any meaningful limitation on how the abstract idea is performed. The transmission to an external apparatus likewise represents generic communication of selected information. The claim does not recite any specific technique for processing sound signals (e.g., signal transformation), any improvement to acoustic sensing or sound analysis technology, or any improvement to computer or network functionality. Instead, the claim merely applies the abstract idea in a particular technological environment (sound monitoring) and uses generic computing components to perform routine data handling operations. Such use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea constitutes mere instructions to apply the exception , which does not amount to integration into a particular application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), nor does it effect a particular machine in a meaningful way beyond generic data processing. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a particular application . At Step 2B , consideration is given to additional elements that may make the abstract idea significantly more. Under Step 2B , there are no additional elements that make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements of the claim, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The recited processor, data storage, and data transmission represent well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer systems and data processing (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). The distinguishing aspect of the claim, namely, selecting sound information for transmission such that sound information having the same characteristic information as previously transmitted sound information within a preset period is not selected, amounts to rule-based filtering or deduplication technique . Such filtering of redundant information based on prior transmission history and time constraints is conventional data management practice and does not constitute “significantly more”. Moreover, the claim does not recite any unconventional arrangement of components or any specific technological implementation that improves system performance in a technical sense. The ordered combination of elements merely performs the abstract idea using generic computer functions, and therefore does not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Accordingly, the claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea . Dependent claims 2-7 do not add limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Instead, the claims merely further limit the abstract idea by specifying additional data analysis, classification, and selection rules applied to sound information, which remain within the realm of mental processes and conventional data management techniques. Accordingly, claims 2-7 do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 . Claims 8 and 9 are rejected 35 USC § 101 for the same rationale as in claim 1. The additional element ( claim 9 ), the element of “non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a program causing the computer to execute a process” is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 1-3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salonidis e al. (Patent No. US 9,905,249) (hereinafter Salonidis) in view of Cirinna et al. (WO 2022200994) (hereinafter Cirinna) and further in view of Kune et al. (Pub. No. US2020/0396236) (hereinafter Kune) and Naccache et al. (NPL: “ Approaching Optimal Duplicate Detection in a Sliding Window ”, Be-ys Research Lab, Clermont-Ferrand, France (2020)) (hereinafter Naccache). As per claims 1, 8 and 9 , Salonidis teaches a processor configured to: collect sound information about sounds occurring in a monitored apparatus; store collected sound information together with characteristic information (e.g., data signature) about the collected sound information (see col. 2, line 56 through col. 3, line 17). Salonidis further teaches comparing such data over time to identify conditions of the monitored apparatus (see col. 3, lines 1-17 and col. 12, lines 11-25); store, when collected sound information is transmitted to a set external apparatus, characteristic information pertaining to the sound information transmitted to the external apparatus (see col. 12, line 48 through col. 12, line 2). Salonidis fails to explicitly teach classifying sound information into discrete types or associating a classification label with each sound instance (i.e., classifying sounds with the same or different characteristic information (data signatures)). Cirinna teaches determining characteristic information in the form of a classification of acoustic signals, including generating a classification signal indicative of an anomaly type using a classifier (see Abstract), thereby Cirinna teaches that the characteristic information may include a type of abnormal sound associated with the collected sound information. Kune teaches storing collected signal data together with extracted feature information and transmitting such information to an external apparatus (e.g., server) (see Fig. 2 and ¶[0022], “ The monitoring device 102 can also monitor other side channels such as, but not limited to, electromagnetic and acoustic emissions … The monitoring device 102 can also run a secure communication stack that enables the monitoring device 102 to communicate and offload a portion (or all) of the computational requirements to the server 104 … ”), thereby teaching storing sound information together with characteristic information and transmitting it to an external apparatus. However, Salonidis, Cirinna, and Kune do not explicitly disclose storing characteristic information corresponding to previously transmitted sound information and selecting sound information for transmission such that sound information having the same characteristic information as previously transmitted sound information within a preset period is not selected. Naccache, however, teaches detecting duplicate items within a sliding time window by maintaining a set of recent observed items and determining whether a newly observed item is a duplicate of an item within the window, and filtering or suppressing such duplicate items accordingly (see Abstract and pages 3-4, section 2. “Notations and basic definitions” and pages 7-9, section 4. “Non-windowed DDFs in a wDDP setting”. This corresponds to identifying items having the same characteristics and suppressing their processing within a defined time interval. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Salonidis in view of Cirinna and Kune to (i) classify sound information and associate characteristic information (Cirinna), and (ii0 store and transmit such sound and feature data to an external apparatus (Kune), because classification and feature-based storage/transmission improve diagnostic accuracy and enable remote analysis, thereby enhancing system effectiveness. It would have been further obvious to incorporate the sliding-window-based duplicate suppression taught by Naccache into the combined system because monitoring and communicating systems routinely avoid processing or transmitting redundant data within a recent time interval, thereby reducing bandwidth usage and preventing repeated reporting of substantially identical conditions. In doing so, the combined system would select and transmit a different piece of sound information when a candidate sound has the same characteristic information as sound information transmitted within a preset past period, as recited. Accordingly, the claimed invention would have been obvious. As per claim 2 , the combination of Salonidis, Cirinna, Kune, and Naccache teaches the system as stated above. Salonidis further teaches comparing the collected sound information to normal sound information (see col. 13, lines 44-56). As per claim 3 , the combination of Salonidis, Cirinna, Kune, and Naccache teaches the system as stated above. Cirinna further teaches classification output indicating anomaly type (see Abstract). As per claims 5 and 6 , the combination of Salonidis, Cirinna, Kune, and Naccache teaches the system as stated above. Salonidis further teaches that the characteristic information is information pertaining to details of operations by the monitored apparatus when sound information is collected (see col. 6, lines 4-30, i.e., acoustic signatures correlated with machine operating condition corresponding to operation state, device component information). 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salonidis in view of Cirinna and further in view of Kune and Naccache and further in view of Dickens et al. (NPL: “ A Transient Classification System Implementation on an Open Source Distributed Power Quality Network ”, ENERGY 2019: The Ninth International Conference on Smart Grids, Green Communications and IT Energy-aware Technologies) (hereinafter Dickens). As per claim 4 , the combination of Salonidis, Cirinna, Kune, and Naccache teaches the system as stated above except that types of abnormal sounds contained in sound information include at least two from among sudden abnormal sounds, periodically occurring abnormal sounds, and continuous abnormal sounds. Dickens, however, teaches classification of signal disturbances into different temporal types, including impulsive (sudden) disturbances, and oscillatory disturbances (periodic) (see Abstract and Table 1). Such disturbances represent deviations from normal signal behavior and therefore correspond to abnormal conditions in monitored systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply such temporal classification to abnormal sounds in a machine monitoring system because different fault conditions produce distinct temporal signal behaviors, thereby enabling improved diagnosis and fault identification. Since Dickens teaches at least two such temporal categories, the requirement of claim 4 is satisfied . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salonidis in view of Cirinna and further in view of Kune and Naccache and further in view of Robinson et al. (Patent No. US 5,895,857) (hereinafter Robinson). As per claim 7 , the combination of Salonidis, Cirinna, Kune, and Naccache teaches the system as stated above except that for sound information with the same characteristic information among collected sound information, the processor is configured to store only the sound information with a highest sound level. Robinson, however, teaches fault detection system in which vibration signals corresponding to machine events are processed using a peak value detection that determines and holds the peak amplitude values of the signal during sampling periods, producing a time series of peak amplitude values used for analysis of faults in the machine. The peak amplitude values represent the most significant instances of the vibration signal associated with the fault event (see col. 3, lines 41-52 and col. 4, lines 29-56). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of combination of Salonidis, Cirinna, Kune, and Naccache to store only the sound information having the highest sound level among sound information having the same characteristic information because selecting the peak amplitude signal provides a representative and most informative instance of a detected abnormal event, while avoiding redundant storage of multiple signals corresponding to the same event, thereby improving storage efficiency and diagnostic accuracy. Prior art The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Komatsu et al. [‘494] discloses an anomaly detection apparatus extracts a circumstantial feature value for anomaly detection corresponding to a circumstantial feature value for learning from other modal signal for anomaly detection different in modal from acoustic, calculates a signal pattern feature related to an acoustic signal of anomaly detection target based on the acoustic signal of anomaly detection target, the circumstantial feature value for anomaly detection and a signal pattern model learned based on an acoustic signal for learning and the circumstantial feature value for learning calculated from other modal signal for learning, and calculates an anomaly score for performing an anomaly detection of the acoustic signal of anomaly detection target based on the signal pattern feature. Tawada [‘581] discloses an information processing apparatus includes a data acquisition unit configured to acquire a plurality of pieces of acoustic data based on sound collection performed by a plurality of sound collection units each configured to collect a sound at a different position, a setting unit configured to set a virtual sound source position corresponding to a piece of acoustic data acquired by the data acquisition unit, based on a sound collection position of a sound collection unit for acquiring the piece of acoustic data and correlation information indicating a correlation between the piece of acoustic data, the virtual sound source position set such that an imbalance between a plurality of virtual sound source positions respectively corresponding to the plurality of pieces of acoustic data is smaller than an imbalance between sound collection positions of the plurality of sound collection units, and a generation unit configured to generate audio playback data for reproducing a sound for a virtual listening position, by processing at least one of the plurality of pieces of acoustic data acquired by the data acquisition unit based on the virtual listening position and the virtual sound source positions set by the setting unit. Higashi [‘303] discloses an information processing apparatus acquires detection information of a physical quantity that changes according to an operation state of a target device, transmits an acquisition request to the target device at predetermined time, to acquire context information relating to an operation status of the target device in response to the acquisition request, specifies a processing period in which the target device is in the middle of processing of the target object based on the predetermined time and the context information, extracts processing period detection information of the specified processing period from the detection information, and determines an occurrence of a defect relating to processing by the target device during the processing period based on the processing period detection information and the context information used for specifying the processing period. Contact information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED CHARIOUI whose telephone number is (571)272-2213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 6 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Mohamed Charioui /MOHAMED CHARIOUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/453,337 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/453,337 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/453,337 Page 4 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/453,337 Page 5 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/453,337 Page 6 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/453,337 Page 7 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/453,337 Page 8 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/453,337 Page 9 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/453,337 Page 10 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/453,337 Page 11 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/453,337 Page 12 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/453,337 Page 13 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/453,337 Page 14 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/453,337 Page 15 Art Unit: 2857
Prosecution Insights