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 .
Pro Se
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
35 USC § 101
The claims limitations do not contain an abstract idea, and therefore,
claims 1-7 are not subject to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality:
the claim uses past tense verb, however, the claim should be drafted using an active tense.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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.
Claim 1-7 is 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.
Claims 1-7 recite the limitations “A method and system”, and the phrase is unclear if the claims are directed to a method, a system, a method using the system, or something else. Therefore, claims 1-7 are indefinite.
Claim 1 does not contain any transitional phrase, and thus, it is unclear where the preamble of the claim ends and the body of the claim begins. Therefore, claim 1 and further dependent claims 2-7 are indefinite.
Claim 3 recites “known-good reference waveforms” and “same and similar models”. The terms “good” and “similar” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite, and the terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, claims 3 is indefinite.
Claim 4 recites “same and similar models”. The term “similar” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite, and the term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, claims 4 is indefinite.
Claim 7 recites "could include a recommended diagnostic troubleshooting direction.” Because of the presence of the word "could", it is unclear if this claim element is further limiting. Therefore, claim 7 is indefinite.
Claim 7 also recites the limitations “wherein the analysis of a waveform will result in either an objective result, a subjective result or both” and the phrase are indefinite because the boundary of the claim limitation is unclear to the examiner as to what an objective result, and a subjective result are.
For a purpose of a compact prosecution, the examiner interprets this limitation as an objective result is a analysis result obtained by using a system or computer that analyzed or determined waveforms measured by sensors or detectors; and a subjective result is a analysis result obtained by relying on a technician’s professional experience who analyzed and determined measured waveforms.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form
the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alam et al. (US 20210125300, hereinafter Alam).
As to claim 1, Alam teaches analyzing captured waveforms to diagnose or predict issues and failures in automotive and off-highway vehicle applications ([0043], [0044], [0088] disclose the prediction model 404 predicts he operational health and probability of failure of the vehicles based on the data collected from the sensors in all the fleets, prior failure events of the vehicles, and a plurality of features associated with the inputs 402 that include a combination of electric, instrumentation, and control-system features and driving features. A plurality of features of a combination of electric, instrumentation, control-system features, and driving features, and the feature are of different types such as numeric features, strings, and graphs in [0033]; (i.e., the prediction model or machine learning diagnoses or predict probability of failure in vehicles or automotives and a recreation vehicle or off-highway vehicle applications based on data or features of graphs or waveforms - emphasis added by Examiner)).
As to claim 2, Alam teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 1.
Alam teaches wherein machine learning and other applications of artificial intelligence are used to perform waveform analysis ([0033], [0043], [0044] disclose the EV failure prediction model 404 utilizes and analyzes features of a combination of electric, instrumentation, control-system features, and driving features, and the feature are of different types such as numeric features, strings, and graphs (i.e., features of graphs or waveforms - emphasis added by Examiner); and predicts the operational health and probability of failure of the vehicles).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alam et al. (US 20210125300, hereinafter Alam) in view of Doyle et al. (US 20050182536, hereinafter Doyle).
As to claim 5, Alam teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 2.
Alam does not explicitly teach wherein waveforms are captured, and then transmitted to a remote system for processing and analysis.
Doyle teaches wherein waveforms are captured, and then transmitted to a remote system for processing and analysis ([0029] and [0042] discloses the message processing logic 206 which is a part of the battery-state detection system 200 generates one or more vehicle messages 226 which include processed data such as the battery waveform, and the vehicle messages such as battery, engine, vehicle, or cargo sensor information, and the messages or waveforms are transmitted to the remote diagnostic station for analysis to determine the state of the battery).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Doyle into Alam for the purpose of diagnosing a state of a vehicle’s battery in order to determine the battery characteristics. This combination would improve in accurately identifying weak battery for timely service before an actual failure occurs.
As to claim 6, Alam teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 2.
Alam does not explicitly teach wherein waveforms are captured, and then processed and analyzed locally on the same system used to capture the waveform.
Doyle teaches wherein waveforms are captured, and then processed and analyzed locally on the same system used to capture the waveform ([0009], [0031], and [0039] disclose difficult engine starting is one indicator of a weak battery, and thus, the battery voltage is monitored during a starting event and a low voltage condition is measured just after the starting event begins, and a battery waveform is recorded
by the detection logic 202 which is a part of the battery-state detection system 200 for analysis for selected battery characteristics. The battery waveform is analyzed for low voltage conditions, engine crank speed, engine crank time, and other battery characteristics, and the system detects abnormal starting events that are indicative of a weak battery (i.e., analyzed or determined the battery waveform locally on the same system of the battery-state detection system 200 that is used to capture the waveform as the battery-state detection system 200 includes detection logic 202, message processing logic 206, and sensors that measure the operation of the battery, engine, vehicle, or environment - emphasis added by Examiner)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Doyle into Alam for the purpose of diagnosing a state of a vehicle’s battery in order to determine the battery characteristics. This combination would improve in accurately identifying weak battery for timely service before an actual failure occurs.
As to claim 7, Alam teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 2.
Alam does not explicitly teach wherein the analysis of a waveform will result in either an objective result, a subjective result or both, and could include a recommended diagnostic troubleshooting direction.
Doyle teaches wherein the analysis of a waveform will result in either an objective result ([0009] discloses the battery voltage is monitored during a starting event, a low voltage condition is measured just after the starting event begins, and a battery waveform is recorded and analyzed for selected battery characteristics. Thus, the system detects abnormal starting events that are indicative of a weak battery.
(i.e., detects abnormal starting events that are indicative of a weak battery based on the measured and recorded battery voltage can be considered as an objective result - emphasis added by Examiner)), a subjective result or both ([0010] discloses vehicle information such as the battery wave form is transmitted to a remote diagnostic station where it is analyzed by service technicians who may also determine that the battery poses a risk of failure (i.e., service technicians analyze and determine that the battery poses a risk of failure can be considered as an adjective result - emphasis added by Examiner)), and could include a recommended diagnostic troubleshooting direction ([0026] discloses The remote diagnostic station 104 comprises equipment and personnel that can further process the information received from the detection system 108. For example, the diagnostic station 104 may perform additional tests or analysis on the received information to predict more accurately the potential for battery failure (i.e., include a recommended diagnostic troubleshooting direction - emphasis added by Examiner). The received information may also be stored as part of an operation and maintenance record for the vehicle 100.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Doyle into Alam for the purpose of diagnosing a state of a vehicle’s battery in order to determine the battery characteristics. This combination would improve in accurately identifying weak battery for timely service before an actual failure occurs.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding Claims 3-4, the most pertinent prior arts are “Alam US 20210125300”, “Doyle US 20050182536”, “Sabella US 20210112441”, “Welland WO 2015189596A1”, and “Bielby US 20210049444”.
As to claim 3, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein a supervised learning model is trained against a library of known-good reference waveforms for same and similar models of automotive and off-highway equipment” including all limitations as claimed.
As to claim 4, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein an unsupervised learning model is trained over time based on waveforms captured from same and similar models of automotive and off-highway equipment” including all limitations as claimed.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102,
claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b), and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Kondo JP 2021024014A” teaches “To provide a machine tool having a hydrostatic pressure fluid support device for suppressing the vibration of a moving body by adjusting a flow rate of fluid supplied to a hydrostatic pressure pocket according to a disturbance load applied to the moving body. SOLUTION: An optimum waveform data creation part 53 comprises: a learnt model storage part 65 for storing a learnt model which is created by performing the supervised learning of machine learning; an estimation value acquisition part 66 for acquiring an estimation shift time being an estimation value of a shift time with respect to reference waveform data for reducing an amplitude of the reference waveform data on the basis of the reference waveform data and the learnt model; and an optimum waveform data element derivation part 70 for deriving an optimum shift time being the shift time with the reference waveform data as a reference in the optimum waveform data for reducing the amplitude of the reference waveform data on the basis of the estimation shift time.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:00-12:00, 1:00-5:00 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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2863