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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on November 29, 2023.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined that step 2A, Prong that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
According to Step 1 of the analysis, in the instant case claims 1-7 are directed to a system, claims 8-14 are directed to a computer program product, and claims 15-20 are directed to a method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Considering independent claim 1 and Step 2A, Prong One, the limitations including: “determine one or more components of the system used during the process; generate a component knowledge graph for the process, wherein the component knowledge graph comprises one or more nodes corresponding to each of one or more components used during the process; and determine a component health rating for each of the one or more components used in the process,” covers performance of the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) notes “the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” Claim 1 recites determining one or more components used during the process, which is an observation, evaluation, and/or judgment, and, therefore, a mental step. Claim 1 further recites generating a component knowledge graph, which is also an observation, evaluation, and/or judgment. Lastly, claim 1 recites determining a component health rating for the components used in the process, which is also an observation, evaluation, and/or judgment. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Considering Step 2A, Prong Two, the judicial exception in claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional elements: “[a] system for analyzing health of individual electronic components” and “at least one non-transitory storage device; and at least one processing device coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device, wherein the at least one processing device is configured to: receive a process request, wherein the process request is a request to execute a process.” The system, non-transitory storage device, and processing device are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the “receive a process request” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is insignificant extra-solution data activity, mere data gathering; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, it is noted that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) teaches that a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process.
Considering Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more. The system, non-transitory storage device, and processing device are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to a generic computer which is well-understood, routine, and conventional; i.e. storing and retrieving information in memory as detailed in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Additionally, the “receive a process request” is insignificant extra-solution activity and does not amount to significantly more; see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Considering claim 2, dependent on claim 1, and Step 2A, Prong One, the limitations including: “generate a simulation of the process related to the process request” and “the component knowledge graph is generated based on the simulation of the process,” covers performance of the mind. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) notes “the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” Claim 2’s generation is an evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Claim 2 contains the new additional element “a machine learning model.” But this additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity and a tangential addition to the claim; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial into a practical application or recite significantly more.
Considering claim 3, dependent on claim 1, and Step 2A, Prong One, the limitations including: “generate a component health image for each of the one or more components based on the each of the component health ratings” covers performance of the mind, or pen and paper. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) notes “the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” Claim 3’s generation is an evaluation and/or judgment.
Claim 3 does not contain any new additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more; see the rejection of claims 1 above for details.
Considering claim 4, there are no abstract elements present, and the claim is not rejected under 101. Claim 4 contains only additional elements that would be analyzed under the two-step process if incorporated into the independent claim.
Considering claim 5, there are no abstract elements present, and the claim is not rejected under 101. Claim 5 contains only additional elements that would be analyzed under the two-step process if incorporated into the independent claim.
Considering claim 6, dependent on claim 1, and Step 2A, Prong One, the limitations including: “the component knowledge graph is generated using at least one of historical data or telemetry data” covers performance of the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) notes “the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” Claim 6’s generation of a knowledge graph is an evaluation and/or judgment.
Claim 6 does not contain any additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more; see the rejections of claims 1 above for details.
Considering claim 7, dependent on claim 1, and Step 2A, Prong One, the limitations including: “the component knowledge graph is generated using at least two of historical data, telemetry data, or simulated data” covers performance of the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) notes “the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” Claim 7’s generation of a knowledge graph is an evaluation and/or judgment.
Claim 7 contains the new additional element “a machine learning model.” But this additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity and a tangential addition to the claim; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial into a practical application or recite significantly more.
Independent claim 8 is similar in scope to claim 1 and rejected for the same reasons as presented above. Claim 8 includes new additional elements: “[a] computer program product.” The “computer program product” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the “computer program product” amounts to a generic computer which is well-understood, routine, and conventional; i.e. storing and retrieving information in memory as detailed in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Claim 8 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 9-14 are similar to claims 2-7 and rejected for the same reasons as presented above.
Independent claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 1 and rejected for the same reasons as presented above.
Dependent claims 16-20 are similar to claims 2-6 and rejected for the same reasons as presented above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al., “Assembly Process Knowledge Graph for Digital Twin” (Jiang), in view of Lu et al., “Exploration of the Construction and Application of Knowledge Graph in Equipment Failure” (Lu).
With respect to independent claim 1 Jiang teaches:
at least one non-transitory storage device (Jiang teaches implementation details in section IV, including software implementation with a processor. Such an implementation would require a storage device.); and
at least one processing device coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device (Jiang teaches implementation details in section IV, including software implementation with a processor. Such an implementation would require a storage device.), wherein the at least one processing device is configured to:
receive a process request, wherein the process request is a request to execute a process (Jiang teaches developing knowledge graphs for an assembly process; see abstract.);
determine one or more components of the system used during the process (Jiang teaches prototypes in section II and Figure 1 that include various components, such as an assembly line.);
generate a component knowledge graph for the process, wherein the component knowledge graph comprises one or more nodes corresponding to each of one or more components used during the process (Jiang teaches a knowledge graph in section II and Figure 1 that includes various component nodes connected via edges.); and
Jiang does not explicitly teach:
A system for analyzing system health of individual electronic components using component relational graphs, the system comprising:
…
determine a component health rating for each of the one or more components used in the process.
However, Lu teaches these features:
A system for analyzing system health of individual electronic components using component relational graphs (Lu teaches a knowledge graph used to determine equipment failures; see abstract and figure 1.), the system comprising:
…
determine a component health rating for each of the one or more components used in the process (Figure 1, and section “Fault Knowledge Graph Construction” on page 148, of Lu determines whether various components are faulted, which can be considered a health rating.).
Jiang and Lu are analogous art directed towards knowledge graphs. Lu teaches generating knowledge graphs for an assembly process, including simulations, and Lu teaches determining faults in machinery using knowledge graphs.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in knowledge graphs to implement Lu’s health ratings into Jiang’s disclosed system before the filing date of the claimed invention. It would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to benefit from a data-driven, iterative, automatic construction of a knowledge graph that is effective in determining faults for troubleshooting purposes; see Summary section on page 152.
With respect to dependent claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Further Lu teaches:
wherein the at least one processing device is configured to generate a component health image for each of the one or more components based on the each of the component health ratings (Lu teaches a knowledge graph that may indicate a component is faulted in Figure 1, and section “Fault Knowledge Graph Construction” on page 148. Whether various components are faulted, which can be considered a health rating. [0083] of the instant specification states that the health image may be binary, and a faulted/not-faulted state is a binary status.).
See the rejection of claim 1 for the motivation to combine references.
With respect to dependent claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Further, Jiang teaches:
wherein the one or more components comprises at least one application or at least one hardware component of the system (Jiang teaches prototypes in section II and Figure 1 that include virtual prototypes and physical prototypes, both comprising components.).
With respect to dependent claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Further Jiang teaches:
wherein the component knowledge graph is generated using at least one of historical data or telemetry data (In section II, Jiang teaches the generation of the knowledge graph includes at least assembly process monitoring. Assembly process data can be either historical or real time, and [0075] describes telemetry data as real-time processing data.).
With respect to dependent claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Further Jiang teaches:
wherein the component knowledge graph is generated using at least two of historical data, telemetry data, or simulated data generated via a machine learning model (In section II, Jiang teaches the generation of the knowledge graph includes at least assembly process monitoring. Assembly process data can be either historical or real time, and [0075] describes telemetry data as real-time processing data. Section II and Figure 1 also teach simulation data to generate a knowledge graph.).
With respect to independent claim 8, the claim is similar to claim 1 and rejected for the same reasons as presented above.
With respect to dependent claim 10, the claim is similar to claim 3 and rejected for the same reasons as presented above.
With respect to dependent claim 12, the claim is similar to claim 5 and rejected for the same reasons as presented above.
With respect to dependent claim 13, the claim is similar to claim 6 and rejected for the same reasons as presented above.
With respect to dependent claim 14, the claim is similar to claim 7 and rejected for the same reasons as presented above.
With respect to independent claim 15, the claim is similar to claim 1 and rejected for the same reasons as presented above.
With respect to dependent claim 17, the claim is similar to claim 3 and rejected for the same reasons as presented above.
With respect to dependent claim 19, the claim is similar to claim 5 and rejected for the same reasons as presented above.
With respect to dependent claim 20, the claim is similar to claim 6 and rejected for the same reasons as presented above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kulkarni et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0081891 – teaches a system for generating and managing knowledge graphs in an industrial setting.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL T PELLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-7156. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9-5 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, Li Zhen can be reached on 571-272-3768. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL T PELLETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2121
Prosecution Insights