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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-8 and 10-16 are currently pending
Claims 1, 10, 14-15 have been amended
Claims 2 and 9 are cancelled
Claim 16 is new
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 2/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-15 under U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that automatically controlling an actuator is enough to be considered an improvement in the technical field of control of computer-controlled systems. However, according to MPEP 2106.05(a), it is not enough to be considered an improvement because, it is interpreted as mere automation of a manual process using a generic computer; thus, it is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, the specification recites data driven control for automatic determination and outputting an alert based on a determination that a threshold has been exceeded. These further elaborate the abstract idea recited in the claim because, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, they can be performed by the human mind. Furthermore, applicant argues the claim does not recite an abstract idea. However, according to MPEP 2106, determining respective weights and a causality indicator are considered abstract ideas because they can be performed mentally. For example, determining respective weights can be done with pen and paper using linear regression and a causality indicator can be determined in various ways using diagrams to identify the relationship between the cause and the effect. Additionally, using machine learnable models to make a determination is considered mere data driven calculations using algorithms. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments regarding the claim not reciting an abstract idea and being directed to an improvement in a technical field is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sensor measurements" in line 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the sensor measurements of the physical quantity in lines 1-2 or other sensor measurements. If it is referring to the sensor measurements of the physical quantity in line 1-2, it is recommended to amend to recite “the sensor measurements of the physical quantity”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the multiple sensor measurements" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the multiple sensor measurements of the physical quantity in line 4 or other multiple sensor measurements. If it is referring to the multiple sensor measurements of the physical quantity in line 4, it is recommended to amend to recite “the multiple sensor measurements of the physical quantity”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the respective weights" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the respective weights for respective sensor measurements of the multiple sensor measurements in lines 6-7 or other respective weights. If it is referring to the respective sensor measurements in line 6-7, it is recommended to amend to recite “the respective weights for respective sensor measurements of the multiple sensor measurements”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the respective sensor measurements" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the respective sensor measurements of the multiple sensor measurements in lines 6-7 or other respective sensor measurements. If it is referring to the respective sensor measurements in line 6-7, it is recommended to amend to recite “the respective sensor measurements of the multiple sensor measurements”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the reweighted sensor measurements " in line 18-19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the reweighted sensor measurements for the respective sensor measurements of the multiple sensor measurements in lines 6-9 or other reweighted sensor measurements. If it is referring to the reweighted sensor measurements in line 6-9, it is recommended to amend to recite “the reweighted sensor measurements for the respective sensor measurements of the multiple sensor measurements”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the system" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the computer-controlled system in lines 5 or another system. If it is referring to the computer-controlled system in lines 5, it is recommended to amend to recite “the computer-controlled system”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the sensor measurements" in line 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the sensor measurements of the physical quantity in lines 1-2 or other sensor measurements. If it is referring to the sensor measurements of the physical quantity in line 1-2, it is recommended to amend to recite “the sensor measurements of the physical quantity”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the respective weights" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the respective weights for respective sensor measurements in lines 7 or other respective weights. If it is referring to the respective weights for respective sensor measurements in lines 7, it is recommended to amend to recite “the respective weights for the respective sensor measurements”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "reweighting the sensor measurements " in line 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to reweighting the respective sensor measurements in lines 7 or reweighting the sensor measurements of the physical quantity or reweighting other sensor measurements. If it is referring to the respective sensor measurements in line 7, it is recommended to amend to recite “reweighting the respective sensor measurements”. If it is referring to reweighting the sensor measurements of the physical quantity in line 1-2, it is recommended to amend to recite “reweighting the sensor measurements of the physical quantity”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the reweighted sensor measurements " in line 19-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the reweighted sensor measurements according to the respective weights of the respective sensor measurements in lines 10 or other reweighted sensor measurements. If it is referring to the reweighted sensor measurements according to the respective weights of the respective sensor measurements in line 10, it is recommended to amend to recite “the reweighted sensor measurements according to/of the respective weights of the respective sensor measurements”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the sensor measurements" in line 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the sensor measurements of the physical quantity in lines 2 or other sensor measurements. If it is referring to the sensor measurements of the physical quantity in line 2, it is recommended to amend to recite “the sensor measurements of the physical quantity”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the respective weights" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the respective weights for respective sensor measurements in lines 8 or other respective weights. If it is referring to the respective weights for respective sensor measurements in lines 8, it is recommended to amend to recite “the respective weights for respective sensor measurements”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "reweighting the sensor measurements " in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to reweighting the respective sensor measurements in lines 7 or reweighting the sensor measurements of the physical quantity or reweighting other sensor measurements. If it is referring to the respective sensor measurements in line 7, it is recommended to amend to recite “reweighting the respective sensor measurements”. If it is referring to reweighting the sensor measurements of the physical quantity in line 2, it is recommended to amend to recite “reweighting the sensor measurements of the physical quantity”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the reweighted sensor measurements " in line 20-21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the reweighted sensor measurements according to the respective weights of the respective sensor measurements in lines 11 or other reweighted sensor measurements. If it is referring to the reweighted sensor measurements according to the respective weights of the respective sensor measurements in line 10, it is recommended to amend to recite “the reweighted sensor measurements according to/of the respective weights of the respective sensor measurements”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the sensor measurements" in line 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the sensor measurements of the physical quantity in lines 1-2 or other sensor measurements. If it is referring to the sensor measurements of the physical quantity in line 1-2, it is recommended to amend to recite “the sensor measurements of the physical quantity”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the respective weights" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the respective weights for respective sensor measurements in lines 7 or other respective weights. If it is referring to the respective weights for respective sensor measurements in lines 7, it is recommended to amend to recite “the respective weights for respective sensor measurements”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "reweighting the sensor measurements " in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to reweighting the respective sensor measurements in lines 7 or reweighting the sensor measurements of the physical quantity or reweighting other sensor measurements. If it is referring to the respective sensor measurements in line 7, it is recommended to amend to recite “reweighting the respective sensor measurements”. If it is referring to reweighting the sensor measurements of the physical quantity in line 2, it is recommended to amend to recite “reweighting the sensor measurements of the physical quantity”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the reweighted sensor measurements " in lines 19-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the reweighted sensor measurements according to the respective weights of the respective sensor measurements in lines 7 or other reweighted sensor measurements. If it is referring to the reweighted sensor measurements according to the respective weights of the respective sensor measurements in line 7, it is recommended to amend to recite “the reweighted sensor measurements according to/of the respective weights of the respective sensor measurements”.
1. Claims 3-8, 10-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 1.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 3-8 and 10-16 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, the claim recites A computer-implemented method of detecting anomalies in sensor measurements of a physical quantity, the method comprising the following steps: obtaining measurement data from at least one sensor, wherein the measurement data include multiple sensor measurements of the physical quantity, wherein the sensor measurements are of a computer-controlled system; determining respective weights for respective sensor measurements of the multiple sensor measurements by maximizing a discrepancy between the measurement data and a mixture distribution, wherein the mixture distribution is obtained by reweighting the sensor measurements according to the respective weights; outputting the respective weights as indicators of outlier likelihoods for the respective sensor measurements, wherein the measurement data includes pairs of sensor measurements of the physical quantity and a further physical quantity, and wherein the method further comprises: training a first machine learnable model to predict the further physical quantity from the physical quantity based on the measurement data; training a second machine learnable model to predict the further physical quantity from the physical quantity based on the reweighted sensor measurements; determining a causality indicator indicating a causal effect of the physical quantity on the further physical quantity, wherein the causality indicator is determined based on a model disagreement of the trained first and second machine learnable models; and automatically controlling the system to affect the physical quantity based on determining that the physical quantity has a causal effect on the further physical quantity, wherein the automatic controlling includes controlling an actuator of the computer-controlled system to affect the physical quantity, the actuator being an electric, hydraulic, pneumatic, thermal, magnetic and/or mechanical actuator.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. the claim recites the limitation of determining respective weights for respective sensor measurements of the multiple sensor measurements by maximizing a discrepancy between the measurement data and a mixture distribution, wherein the mixture distribution is obtained by reweighting the sensor measurements according to the respective weights. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining respective weights for respective sensor measurements can be done by a human with pen and paper.
Similarly, the claim recites the limitation of determining a causality indicator indicating a causal effect of the physical quantity on the further physical quantity, wherein the causality indicator is determined based on a model disagreement of the trained first and second machine learnable models. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining a causality indicator can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of implementing a method of detecting anomalies in sensor measurements of a physical quantity are performed: computer-implemented method; at least one sensor; an actuator of the computer-controlled system; the actuator being an electric, hydraulic, pneumatic, thermal, magnetic and/or mechanical actuator.
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of training a machine model to determine a causality indicator in order to control an actuator. The claimed computer-implemented steps are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform anomaly detecting in sensor measurements. Simply linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: outputting the respective weights as indicators of outlier likelihoods for the respective sensor measurements; wherein the measurement data includes pairs of sensor measurements of the physical quantity and a further physical quantity, and wherein the method further comprises: training a first machine learnable model to predict the further physical quantity from the physical quantity based on the measurement data; training a second machine learnable model to predict the further physical quantity from the physical quantity based on the reweighted sensor measurements; automatically controlling the system to affect the physical quantity based on determining that the physical quantity has a causal effect on the further physical quantity, wherein the automatic controlling includes controlling an actuator of the computer-controlled system to affect the physical quantity.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining a causality indicator in order to control an actuator in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 3 is 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. Claim 3 depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “… determining a further causality indicator indicating a causal effect of the further physical quantity on the physical quantity; and comparing the further causality indicator to the causality indicator.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 4 is 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. Claim 4 depends on Claim 3, which depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “… identifying the physical quantity and the further physical quantity from among the at least three physical quantities as having a causal relation; and using the comparison of the further causality indicator to the causality indicator to determine a direction of the identified causal relation.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 5 is 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. Claim 5 depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the method is for performing root cause analysis of a failure of a computer-controlled system, and wherein the root cause analysis is performed based on determining that the physical quantity has a causal effect on the further physical quantity.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6 depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the model disagreement is determined based on a maximum mean discrepancy between predictions of the trained first and second learnable models.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 7 is 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. Claim 7 depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein determining the respective weights includes constraining a maximum weight of a sensor measurement and/or constraining a maximum deviation from uniform.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 8 is 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. Claim 8 depends on claim 7, which depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the causality indicator is determined based on a trend in the model disagreement for varying values of the maximum weight.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 10 is 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. Claim 10 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “…the method further comprises raising an alert when a determined weight exceeds a threshold.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 11 is 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. Claim 11 which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the discrepancy is based on a maximum mean discrepancy.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 12 is 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. Claim 12 depends on claim 11, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the discrepancy is based on a squared maximum mean discrepancy, and wherein the respective weights are determined by applying a semidefinite relaxation.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 13 is 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. Claim 13 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising determining weights for a selected subset of samples of the measurement data.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites An anomaly detection system configured to detect anomalies in sensor measurements of a physical quantity, the system comprising: a sensor interface for accessing measurement data from at least one sensor, wherein the measurement data include multiple sensor measurements of the physical quantity, wherein the sensor measurements are of a computer-controlled system; a processor subsystem configured to: determine respective weights for respective sensor measurements by maximizing a discrepancy between the measurement data and a mixture distribution, wherein the mixture distribution is obtained by reweighting the sensor measurements according to the respective weights; output the respective weights as indicators of outlier likelihoods for the respective sensor measurements wherein the measurement data includes pairs of sensor measurements of the physical quantity and a further physical quantity, and wherein the processor subsystem is further configured to: train a first machine learnable model to predict the further physical quantity from the physical quantity based on the measurement data; train a second machine learnable model to predict the further physical quantity from the physical quantity based on the reweighted sensor measurements; determine a causality indicator indicating a causal effect of the physical quantity on the further physical quantity, wherein the causality indicator is determined based on a model disagreement of the trained first and second machine learnable models; and automatically control the computer-controlled system to affect the physical quantity based on determining that the physical quantity has a causal effect on the further physical quantity, wherein the automatic control includes controlling an actuator of the computer-controlled system to affect the physical quantity, the actuator being an electric, hydraulic, pneumatic, thermal, magnetic and/or mechanical actuator.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a system; therefore, it is a machine
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of determining respective weights for respective sensor measurements of the multiple sensor measurements by maximizing a discrepancy between the measurement data and a mixture distribution, wherein the mixture distribution is obtained by reweighting the sensor measurements according to the respective weights. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining respective weights for respective sensor measurements can be done by a human or pen and paper.
Similarly, the claim recites the limitation of determining a causality indicator indicating a causal effect of the physical quantity on the further physical quantity, wherein the causality indicator is determined based on a model disagreement of the trained first and second machine learnable models. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining a causality indicator can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: a processor subsystem
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of implementing a method of detecting anomalies in sensor measurements of a physical quantity are performed: a sensor interface, for accessing measurement data, wherein the measurement data include multiple sensor measurements of the physical quantity; the actuator being an electric, hydraulic, pneumatic, thermal, magnetic and/or mechanical actuator
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining weights for sensor measurements and outputting the respective weights as indicators. The claimed computer-implemented steps are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform anomaly detecting in sensor measurements. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: output the respective weights as indicators of outlier likelihoods for the respective sensor measurements; train a first machine learnable model to predict the further physical quantity from the physical quantity based on the measurement data; train a second machine learnable model to predict the further physical quantity from the physical quantity based on the reweighted sensor measurements; automatically control the computer-controlled system to affect the physical quantity based on determining that the physical quantity has a causal effect on the further physical quantity, wherein the automatic control includes controlling an actuator of the computer-controlled system to affect the physical quantity.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of detecting anomalies in sensor measurements in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium on which are stored data representing instructions for detecting anomalies in sensor measurements of a physical quantity, the instructions, when executed by a processor system, causing the processor system to perform the following steps: obtaining measurement data from at least one sensor, wherein the measurement data include multiple sensor measurements of the physical quantity, wherein the sensor measurements are of a computer-controlled system; determining respective weights for respective sensor measurements of the multiple sensor measurements by maximizing a discrepancy between the measurement data and a mixture distribution, wherein the mixture distribution is obtained by reweighting the sensor measurements according to the respective weights; outputting the respective weights as indicators of outlier likelihoods for the respective sensor measurements; wherein the measurement data includes pairs of sensor measurements of the physical quantity and a further physical quantity, and wherein the method further comprises: training a first machine learnable model to predict the further physical quantity from the physical quantity based on the measurement data; training a second machine learnable model to predict the further physical quantity from the physical quantity based on the reweighted sensor measurements; determining a causality indicator indicating a causal effect of the physical quantity on the further physical quantity, wherein the causality indicator is determined based on a model disagreement of the trained first and second machine learnable models; and automatically controlling the computer-controlled system to affect the physical quantity based on determining that the physical quantity has a causal effect on the further physical quantity, wherein the automatic controlling includes controlling an actuator of the computer-controlled system to affect the physical quantity, the actuator being an electric, hydraulic, pneumatic, thermal, magnetic and/or mechanical actuator.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a instructions; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. the claim recites the limitation of determining respective weights for respective sensor measurements of the multiple sensor measurements by maximizing a discrepancy between the measurement data and a mixture distribution, wherein the mixture distribution is obtained by reweighting the sensor measurements according to the respective weights. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining respective weights for respective sensor measurements can be done by a human with pen and paper.
Similarly, the claim recites the limitation of determining a causality indicator indicating a causal effect of the physical quantity on the further physical quantity, wherein the causality indicator is determined based on a model disagreement of the trained first and second machine learnable models. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining a causality indicator can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of implementing a method of detecting anomalies in sensor measurements of a physical quantity are performed: A non-transitory computer-readable medium on which are stored data representing instructions when executed by a processor system, causing the processor system to perform the following steps; at least one sensor; an actuator of the computer-controlled system; the actuator being an electric, hydraulic, pneumatic, thermal, magnetic and/or mechanical actuator.
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of training a machine model to determine a causality indicator in order to control an actuator. The claimed computer-implemented steps are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform anomaly detecting in sensor measurements. Simply linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: outputting the respective weights as indicators of outlier likelihoods for the respective sensor measurements; wherein the measurement data includes pairs of sensor measurements of the physical quantity and a further physical quantity, and wherein the method further comprises: training a first machine learnable model to predict the further physical quantity from the physical quantity based on the measurement data; training a second machine learnable model to predict the further physical quantity from the physical quantity based on the reweighted sensor measurements; automatically controlling the system to affect the physical quantity based on determining that the physical quantity has a causal effect on the further physical quantity, wherein the automatic controlling includes controlling an actuator of the computer-controlled system to affect the physical quantity.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining a causality indicator in order to control an actuator in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites a computer-implemented method of detecting anomalies in sensor measurements of a physical quantity, the method comprising the following steps: obtaining measurement data from at least one sensor, wherein the measurement data include multiple sensor measurements of the physical quantity, wherein the sensor measurements are of a computer-controlled system, the computer-controlled system being a manufacturing production line including a plurality of stations; determining respective weights for respective sensor measurements of the multiple sensor measurements by maximizing a discrepancy between the measurement data and a mixture distribution, wherein the mixture distribution is obtained by reweighting the sensor measurements according to the respective weights; outputting the respective weights as indicators of outlier likelihoods for the respective sensor measurements; wherein the measurement data includes pairs of sensor measurements of the physical quantity and a further physical quantity, and wherein the method further comprises: training a first machine learnable model to predict the further physical quantity from the physical quantity based on the measurement data; training a second machine learnable model to predict the further physical quantity from the physical quantity based on the reweighted sensor measurements; determining a causality indicator indicating a causal effect of the physical quantity on the further physical quantity, wherein the causality indicator is determined based on a model disagreement of the trained first and second machine learnable models; and performing, using the causality indicator, a root cause analysis of a failure of the manufacturing production line; tracing back, based on the root cause analysis, the failure to a station of the plurality of stations; determining actuator data to affect operation of the station to remedy the failure; and automatically controlling the operation of the station using the determined actuator data.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. the claim recites the limitation of determining respective weights for respective sensor measurements of the multiple sensor measurements by maximizing a discrepancy between the measurement data and a mixture distribution, wherein the mixture distribution is obtained by reweighting the sensor measurements according to the respective weights. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining respective weights for respective sensor measurements can be done by a human with pen and paper.
Similarly, the claim recites the limitation of determining a causality indicator indicating a causal effect of the physical quantity on the further physical quantity, wherein the causality indicator is determined based on a model disagreement of the trained first and second machine learnable models. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining a causality indicator can be done by a human with pen and paper.
the claim recites the limitation of performing, using the causality indicator, a root cause analysis of a failure of the manufacturing production line. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, performing a root cause analysis of a failure of the manufacturing production line can be done by a human with pen and paper.
the claim recites the limitation of tracing back, based on the root cause analysis, the failure to a station of the plurality of stations. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, tracing back, based on the root cause analysis, the failure to a station of the plurality of stations can be done by a human with pen and paper.
the claim recites the limitation of determining actuator data to affect operation of the station to remedy the failure. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining actuator data to affect operation of the station to remedy the failure can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of implementing a method of detecting anomalies in sensor measurements of a physical quantity are performed: computer-implemented method; at least one sensor; an actuator
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of training a machine model to determine a causality indicator in order to control an actuator. The claimed computer-implemented steps are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform anomaly detecting in sensor measurements. Simply linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: outputting the respective weights as indicators of outlier likelihoods for the respective sensor measurements; wherein the measurement data includes pairs of sensor measurements of the physical quantity and a further physical quantity, and wherein the method further comprises: training a first machine learnable model to predict the further physical quantity from the physical quantity based on the measurement data; training a second machine learnable model to predict the further physical quantity from the physical quantity based on the reweighted sensor measurements automatically controlling the operation of the station using the determined actuator data.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining a causality indicator in order to control an actuator in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20190295001 A1; FUSCO; Francesco et al. are embodiments for cognitive data curation in a computing environment.
US 20200004655 A1; ABRAMI; Avner et al. are embodiments for continuous time alignment of a collection of independent sensors.
US 20190293462 A1; CHOI; SANG-IL et al. is an apparatus and method for processing multi-type sensor signal on the basis of multi-modal deep learning.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights