DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claims filed 08/05/2026 for Application number 18/455,146. Claims 1, 4-8 and 10-11 have been amended and claim 9 has been canceled. Thus, claims 1-8 and 10-11 are currently pending.
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 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a process, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1 recites, in part, The limitations of:
select at least one reference process value as a correction reference from the plurality of actual process values can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind,
calculate a correction-necessity coefficient of determination from at least one actual process value included in the plurality of actual process values and the at least one reference process value, the correction-necessity coefficient of determination being for determining whether the at least one actual process value has correlation with the at least one reference process value or not can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
determine whether each of the plurality of actual process values is correlated with the at least one reference process value or not, based on the correction-necessity coefficient of determination can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
use the correction value for correcting at least one actual process value determined to be correlated with the at least one reference process value among the plurality of actual process values can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
generate learning input data including at least one corrected process value as the at least one actual process value corrected by the correction value can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
select the reference process value to be used for correcting the additional learning data; can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
calculate the learning input data based on the additional learning data and the reference process value can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
These limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The limitation of: calculate a correction value for correcting the at least one actual process value from the at least one actual process value and the at least one reference process value can be considered to be a mathematical calculation.
This limitation as drafted, is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations which falls within the “Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements - “one or more computers configured to perform machine learning…”. Thus, this element in the claim is 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. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim further recites:
collect monitoring target data obtained by one or more sensors installed in the target facility; This limitation is a mere data gathering step and thus is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
acquire a plurality of actual process values converted from the monitoring target data. This limitation is a mere data gathering step and thus is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
perform the machine learning by inputting the learning input data to the anomaly sign detection model is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
acquire additional learning data generated by simulating the plurality of existing actual process values from an external database when the plurality of actual process values is added as new monitoring target; This limitation is a mere data gathering step and thus is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claims 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 of utilizing one or more computers to perform the steps of the claimed process amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the limitations of:
collect monitoring target data obtained by one or more sensors installed in the target facility
acquire a plurality of actual process values converted from the monitoring target data
acquire additional learning data generated by simulating the plurality of existing actual process values from an external database when the plurality of actual process values is added as new monitoring target
are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(I), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
Additionally, the limitation of perform the machine learning by inputting the learning input data to the anomaly sign detection model is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by Chauhan et al. (“A Review on Conventional Machine Learning vs Deep Learning”, pg. 347, §II. Conventional Machine Learning, ¶1).
These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the correction-necessity coefficient of determination is calculated by using a coefficient of determination. This limitation amounts to more specifics of the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1 above.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein: the correction value is calculated by using a linear regression coefficient; and the at least one corrected process value is generated by subjecting the correction value to arithmetic addition, subtraction, arithmetic multiplication, or division. This claim recites additional mathematical steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the one or more computers are configured to receive an external input operation by a user to an input device for selecting the at least one reference process value. This limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This limitation is just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and is also well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(I), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents an insignificant extra-solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the one or more computers are configured to receive an external input by a user to an input device for calculating the correction-necessity coefficient of determination. This limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This limitation is just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and is also well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(I), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents an insignificant extra-solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the one or more computers are configured to receive an external input by a user to an input device for calculating the correction value. This limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This limitation is just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and is also well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(I), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents an insignificant extra-solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the one or more computers are configured to receive an external input by a user to an input device for auxiliary adjustment of the correction value. This limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This limitation is just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and is also well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(I), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents an insignificant extra-solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the one or more computers are configured to receive an external input by a user to an input device for designating a calculation method that is to be used for correcting the at least one actual process value with the correction value. This limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This limitation is just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and is also well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(I), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents an insignificant extra-solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10, it recites features similar to claim 1 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Claim 11 recites features similar to claim 1 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Claim 11 additionally requires analysis for “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing an anomaly sign detection model generation program to be executed by one or more computers configured to perform machine learning of an anomaly sign detection model…” however this is an additional element that amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP §2106.05(f).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are objected to as being allowable over prior art if all outstanding rejections were withdrawn. None of the prior art, either alone or in combination, fairly discloses limitations of claims 1, 10, and 11 in particular:
acquiring additional learning data generated by simulating the plurality of existing actual process values from an external database when the plurality of actual process values is added as new monitoring target;
selecting the reference process value to be used for correcting the additional learning data; and
calculating the learning input data based on the additional learning data and the reference process value.
The closest prior art of record is Jung et al. (“US 20200386656 A1”) which discloses an anomaly detection system for use in industrial machines or systems by collecting sensor data from a plurality of sensors embedded within one or more machines in a factory layout. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose acquiring additional learning data generated by simulating the plurality of existing actual process values from an external database when the plurality of actual process values is added as new monitoring target as required by the claims.
Goodall et al. (“US 8090592 B1”) discloses statistical analysis for anomaly detection by using data obtained from a data bus however does not explicitly disclose acquiring additional learning data generated by simulating the plurality of existing actual process values from an external database when the plurality of actual process values is added as new monitoring target
None of the prior art explicitly discloses fairly discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 10 and 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection:
Applicant appears to assert that amended claim 1 does not recite matter that falls within at least one concept enumerated in the groupings of abstract ideas. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the 101 rejection, the claim recites various steps such as selecting…, calculating…, determining… all of which can be reasonably performed in the human mind under broadest reasonable interpretation. Additionally, as noted in MPEP §2106.04.(a)(2).III.C. “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process” the limitations of the instant application may still recite a mental process even if the limitations require the use of a computer. Therefore, the examiner asserts that the claims do recite an abstract idea.
Applicant further asserts that amended claim 1 is integrated into a practical application, specifically, improving reliability of an anomaly sign detection function and suppressing false positives. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims as currently recited do not integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the claims are directed towards an improvement in an abstract idea ((i.e. improving anomaly detection) rather than an improvement to computer functionality or other technology. Improvements to an abstract idea are still considered to be an abstract idea. Therefore, examiner asserts the claims are not patent eligible and applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding the Prior art rejection:
In light of applicant’s amendments and remarks, the previous prior art rejection has been withdrawn. Additionally, no additional prior art was uncovered with an updated search which fairly discloses all of the limitations of the independent claims. Therefore, the claims would be allowable if all outstanding rejections were withdrawn.
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 MICHAEL H HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8491. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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.
/MICHAEL H HOANG/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights