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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recites a limitation(s) of analyzing… the first data to generate pre-failure thresholds according to the first operational parameters and the operational errors, wherein the first data is analyzed by one or more machine learning algorithms; analyzing… the second data according to the pre-failure thresholds resulting in a pre-failure analysis, which is a mental process.
The claim(s) recites a series of steps and, therefore, is/are a process. The limitation(s), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor,” “memory,” “medium,” “wireless device,” “vehicle,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “analyzing” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses a user analyzing the first data to generate pre-failure thresholds according to the first operational parameters and the operational errors, wherein the first data is analyzed by one or more machine learning algorithms (mathematical concepts), “analyzing” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses the user analyzing the second data according to the pre-failure thresholds resulting in a pre-failure analysis. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, a step of “receiving, by a processing system including a processor of a server, first data from a group of wireless devices of a group of vehicles, wherein the group of wireless devices each collect the first data that indicates first operational parameters and operational errors at each of the group of vehicles,” or “receiving, by the processing system, second data from a wireless device of a particular vehicle, wherein the wireless device collects the second data that indicates second operational parameters at the particular vehicle” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering first data or second data for use in the analyzing steps), and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In addition, the claim(s) recites additional elements of “processor,” “memory,” “medium,” “wireless device,” “vehicle,” which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic “processor” performing a generic computer function of “providing, by the processing system, an alarm to the particular vehicle when the pre-failure analysis indicates that one or more of the second operational parameters violates one or more of the pre-failure thresholds, wherein the alarm is generated prior to a failure of the particular vehicle that is predictable based on the second operational parameters.”) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the 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(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/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 claim(s) does not provide any indication that the recited device/medium is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the step of “receiving, by a processing system including a processor of a server, first data from a group of wireless devices of a group of vehicles, wherein the group of wireless devices each collect the first data that indicates first operational parameters and operational errors at each of the group of vehicles,” or “receiving, by the processing system, second data from a wireless device of a particular vehicle, wherein the wireless device collects the second data that indicates second operational parameters at the particular vehicle” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. In addition, the additional elements of using “processor,” “memory,” “medium,” “wireless device,” “vehicle,” to perform the claimed invention 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. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
There is no prior art rejection for independent claim(s) 1, 15, 18, and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 101, the Remarks state, “… rather to a specific, practical application in the field of mobile communications networks in which potential errors in wireless devices are predicted and alerted by computer systems. That is, the claims recite establishing pre-failure thresholds that allow a prediction of errors before the error occurs.” “claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea, but a defined process, using machine learning algorithms, for predicting and preventing errors in a mobile communications network.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims are similar to Example 47, Claim 2 where a training algorithm is used to detect and output anomaly. Claim 1 recites using ML algorithms to generate an alarm prior to a failure. Algorithms are mathematical calculations. The plain meaning of “analyzing” encompasses mental evaluations of the first data to generate pre-failure thresholds.
The Remarks state, “the Office Action reviews each additional recitation and describes how each recitation, in a vacuum, generically recites a generic process or generic components without reference to the context of the entire claim.” “fails to consider this recitation in the context of the acquisition of "first data" to generate the "pre-failure thresholds," which allows analysis of "second data" for "generating an alarm." As such, the Office Action fails to identify that the practical application recited in the claims is generating an alarm "prior to a failure of the wireless device that is predictable based on the second operational parameters," as recited in, for example, claim 1, not the use of generic computer components to "apply" mental processes.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Analyzing the first data to generate the thresholds, and further analyzing the second data based on the thresholds to generate an alarm are mental processes. Using mental processes to mentally predict a failure of a wireless device is not a practical application.
The Remarks state, “That is, the claims recite establishing pre-failure thresholds that allow a prediction of errors before the error occurs.” “Similar to Classen, claims 1-20 perform an analysis of data, which may be considered abstract, but integrate the results analysis of data from wireless devices into a specific and tangible process where errors in the wireless devices are identified before they occur.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims are similar to Example 47, Claim 2 where a training algorithm is used to detect and output anomaly. Claim 1 recites using ML algorithms to generate an alarm prior to a failure. Algorithms are mathematical calculations. The plain meaning of “analyzing” encompasses mental evaluations of the first data to generate pre-failure thresholds that allow a mental prediction of a failure.
Conclusion
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 KATHERINE LIN whose telephone number is (571)431-0706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571) 272-3655. 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.
/KATHERINE LIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113