DETAILED ACTION
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.
2. Claims 1-13 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 being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to two of the four statutory classes, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “find a predetermined pattern in the measurement data acquired, compare at least two different pattern sections of the predetermined pattern separately from one another with the measurement data, acquire, based on the respective comparison, to acquire at least one position of each of the at least two different pattern sections in the measurement data, detect, based on the acquired positions and a sequence of the positions in the at least two different pattern sections, the predetermined pattern at one or more positions in the measurement data;
and ascertain, based on the one or more positions of the predetermined pattern, the state of the device,” are abstract ideas as they involve mental process under the BRI. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “a signal acquisition unit configured to acquire measurement data of a physical variable describing the device, the measurement data being flawed measurement data,” “wherein the device is a battery and the physical variable is an electric voltage,” “wherein the device is part of an aircraft,” and “analysis unit” but said limitations are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, recited at high level of generality, and recitation of general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea. The claims additionally recite “wherein the analysis unit is further configured to output the ascertained state of the device at the display device,” but said limitation is merely an insignificant post-solution activity of outputting the desired data from the implementation of the abstract idea. The claims additionally recite “output the ascertained state of the device at a display device, control the device based on the ascertained state of the device, or output the ascertained state of the device at the display device and control the device based on the ascertained state of the device,” but said limitation is merely directed to insignificant post-solution activity of displaying desire information and controlling, recited at high level of generality, without a particular end use. The claims do not improve the functioning of any devices and do not improve other technology. At most, the claims are an improved abstract idea of ascertaining the state of the device. However, improved or new abstract ideas are still abstract ideas and not eligible under the 101. In short, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “a signal acquisition unit configured to acquire measurement data of a physical variable describing the device, the measurement data being flawed measurement data,” “wherein the device is a battery and the physical variable is an electric voltage,” “wherein the device is part of an aircraft,” and “analysis unit” but said limitations are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, recited at high level of generality, and recitation of general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea that are well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims additionally recite “wherein the analysis unit is further configured to output the ascertained state of the device at the display device,” but said limitation is merely an insignificant post-solution activity of outputting the desired data from the implementation of the abstract idea, that are also well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims additionally recite “output the ascertained state of the device at a display device, control the device based on the ascertained state of the device, or output the ascertained state of the device at the display device and control the device based on the ascertained state of the device.” But said limitation is merely directed to insignificant post-solution activity of displaying desire information and controlling, recited at high level of generality, without a particular end use. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
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 1-5, 7-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barre et al., US-PGPUB 2017/0003352 (hereinafter Barre) in view of Lee et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0035082 (hereinafter Lee)
Regarding Claims 1 and 11. Barre discloses a system for automatic detection of state of a device (Abstract, estimating state of battery), the system comprising:
a signal acquisition unit configured to acquire measurement data of a physical variable describing the device, the measurement data being flawed measurement data (Paragraph [0052], plurality of sensors, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, battery data, including voltage, 200; Paragraph [0063], Paragraph [0073], differences in signals from the battery over time);
and an analysis unit configured to find a predetermined pattern in the measurement data acquired by the signal acquisition unit (Paragraphs [0082]-[0084], end result is a reference pattern; Paragraphs [0072]-[0073], extracting from the timer series of measurement, repetitive patterns serving as a reference for comparisons to be made, [0076]-[0077]; Paragraphs [0082]-[0086]; use of dynamic time warping (which is recited in the dependent claim 3 below) disclosed in Paragraphs [0088]-[0119], make the reference pattern identical to each other), wherein the analysis unit is configured, to:
compare at least two different pattern sections of the predetermined pattern separately from one another with the measurement data (Figs. 6B, 6C, 7B, 7C; Paragraph [0079], segments of the pattern, [0088], Fig. 2, 500);
acquire, based on the respective comparison, to acquire at least one position of each of the at least two different pattern sections in the measurement data, detect, based on the acquired positions and a sequence of the positions in the at least two different pattern sections, the predetermined pattern at one or more positions in the measurement data (use of dynamic time warping as disclosed in detail in Paragraphs [0089]-[0119] for determining the pattern, where the analysis detects including positions along the signal, where the signal itself is in ordered sequence. In other words, sequence of positions.) and ascertain, based on the one or more positions of the predetermined pattern, the state of the device (Fig. 2, 1500 state of health of the battery), output the ascertained state of the device, control the device based on the ascertained state of the device, or output the ascertained state of the device at the display device and control the device based on the ascertained state of the device (Paragraphs [0121], output; Paragraph [0139], display).
Barre does not explicitly disclose display device or control the device based on the ascertained state of the device
Lee discloses outputting the ascertained state of the device at a display device, controlling the device based on the ascertained state of the device, or outputting the ascertained state of the device at the display device and control the device based on the ascertained state of the device (Paragraph [0057]; Fig. 8; Paragraphs [0079]-[0082]; [0005]-0009])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Lee in Barre and output the ascertained state of the device at a display device, control the device based on the ascertained state of the device, or output the ascertained state of the device at the display device and control the device based on the ascertained state of the device, and efficiently and safely use the device.
Regarding Claim 2. Barre discloses the device is a battery, and the physical variable is an electric voltage (Paragraph [0052], battery and measuring voltage).
Regarding Claim 3. Barre discloses the analysis unit is designed further configured to compare the at least two different pattern sections of the predetermined pattern with the measurement data by means of using dynamic time warping (Paragraph [0022], dynamic time warping, Paragraph [0048], Figs. 4, 6-7, Paragraphs [0091]-[0119], describing the dynamic time warping in detail)
Regarding Claim 4. Barre discloses the analysis unit is further configured to apply the dynamic time warping to at least one of the at least two different pattern sections of the predetermined pattern, such that at least one modified pattern section is generated (Paragraph [0022], dynamic time warping, Paragraph [0048], Figs. 4, 6-7; Paragraphs [0091]-[0119])
Regarding Claim 5. Bare discloses the analysis unit is further configured to
perform the acquisition of the at least one position of each of the at least two different
pattern sections multiple times, wherein at least two framework conditions are changed over the multiple performances, and a number of positions of the predetermined pattern found in the measurement data per performance is ascertained, wherein a number of positions found that is ascertained most frequently in the multiple performances is ascertained as a result for the number of positions of the predetermined pattern in the measurement data (Figs. 6-7, Paragraphs [0091]-[0119])
Regarding Claim 7. Barre discloses the acquisition of the at least one position of each of the at least two different pattern sections in the measurement data comprises ascertainment via a determination of a minimum overall deviation between the respective pattern section and the measurement data at multiple positions of the measurement data (Figs. 6-7; Paragraphs [0091]-[0119])
Regarding Claim 8. Barre discloses the measurement data is time series data, and the one or more positions of the predetermined pattern each specify a point in time or period of time in the measurement data (Abstract, time series, Figs 3, 5).
Regarding Claims 9 and 12-13. Lee discloses outputting the ascertained state of the device at a display device, controlling the device based on the ascertained state of the device, or outputting the ascertained state of the device at the display device and control the device based on the ascertained state of the device (Paragraph [0057]; Fig. 8; Paragraphs [0079]-[0082]; [0005]-0009])
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barre, US-PGPUB 2017/0003352 in view of Lee, US-PGPUB 2020/0035082 as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Vian et al., US-PGPUB 20150100198 (hereinafter Vian).
Regarding Claim 6. Barre discloses a device is part of a vehicle (Fig. 1).
The modified Barre does not disclose the device is part of an aircraft.
Vian discloses the device is part of an aircraft (Paragraph [0004], Figs. 13, 15, Paragraph [0023])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Vian in the modified Barre and have the device as part of the aircraft, so as to properly indicate the state of the device for the optimal operation of the aircraft.
6. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barre, US-PGPUB 2017/0003352 in view of Lee, US-PGPUB 2020/0035082 as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of Kale et al., US-PGPUB 2021/0049480 (hereinafter Kale)
Regarding Claim 10. Barre discloses artificial neural network (Paragraph [0012], neural network)
The modified Barre does not disclose the analysis unit comprises an artificial neural network and is designed further configured to train the artificial neural network by means of using the one or more positions of the predetermined pattern in the measurement data.
Kale discloses maintenance of automotive battery, including training the neural network to recognize patterns of normal loads of the battery to determine the state of the battery (Figs. 2-21; Paragraphs [0250]-[0254]; [0016]-[0017])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Kale in the modified Barre and have the analysis unit comprises an artificial neural network and is designed further configured to train the artificial neural network by means of using the one or more positions of the predetermined pattern in the measurement data, so as to accurately determine the state of the battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
8. With respect to prior art rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Barre discloses compare at least two different pattern sections of the predetermined pattern separately from one another with the measurement data (Paragraph [0079], segments of the corresponding pattern from the signal S; Paragraph [0088], Fig. 2, 500), and acquire, based on the respective comparison, to acquire at least one position of each of the at least two different pattern sections in the measurement data, detect, based on the acquired positions and a sequence of the positions in the at least two different pattern sections, the predetermined pattern at one or more positions in the measurement data (use of dynamic time warping as disclosed in detail in Paragraphs [0089]-[0119] for determining the pattern), where the analysis detects including positions along the signal, where the signal itself is in ordered sequence. In other words, sequence of positions.
9. With respect to 101, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Section 101 provides that anyone who “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. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that patent protection should not extend to claims that monopolize “the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Gottschalk vs Benson, 409 US 63, 67, 93 S. Ct. 253, 34 L. Edd. 2d 273 [175 USPQ 673] (1972)). Accordingly, laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354.
The 101 subject matter eligibility analysis begins with the claimed language (see Synopsis vs Mentor Graphics, 120 USPQ2d 1473 839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Id., at 1481 “The 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted Claims themselves.”), followed by identifying the focus or underlying invention (see Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 [103 USPQ2d 1425] (Fed. Cir. 2012), Id., at 1431-1432, “Subsequently, however, we explained in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc. that we look not just to the type of claim but also “to the underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.” 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 [99 USPQ2d 1690] (Fed. Cir. 2011). Looking at the claims in the instant application, the claim is an abstract idea of “detecting a state of a generic device”.
Here, note that the Supreme Court has emphatically rejected the idea that claims become patent eligible simply because they disclose a specific solution to a particular problem (Supreme Court, Alice Corp v CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ 2d 1976 at 1985; DDR Holding, 773 F.3d at 1265)). In other words, even the claims that recite specific abstract ideas for “detecting a state of a generic device” would not make the claims eligible under 35 USC 101 on its own.
Additionally, note that the novelty of the abstract idea itself, also does not help in overcoming the 101 rejection (see Flook, In Gottschalk vs Benson, Id., at 195, “we held that the discovery of a novel and useful mathematical formula may not be patented,” Indeed, the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all.”). This means that any novelty or non-conventionality in the abstract idea of “detecting a state of a generic device” will not be a determining factor. New abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see Synopsis, 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d, 1473 (2016), Id., at 1483, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating 102 novelty.”).
Having said that, the subject matter eligibility analysis continues with the examination of the additional elements with respect to the practical application and significantly more criteria. Looking at the claimed invention, the claims additionally recite
various limitations including acquiring measurement data,” but said limitations are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, recited at high level of generality that are well-understood, routine and conventional. In fact, the claims do not even recite any specific type of sensors to acquire the measurement data. The claims additionally recite “analysis unit”, but said limitation is merely directed to a general-purpose computer for processing the collected data that are also well-understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the claims recite “output the ascertained state of the device at a display device,” but said limitation is insignificant post-solution activity, that is also well-understood, routine and conventional. Finally, the claims recite “control the device based on the ascertained state of the device, but said limitation, recited at high level of generality, is merely directed to applying the abstract idea in a broad manner recited at high level of generality without “particular end use”, which therefore would not be considered significantly more to transform the claimed invention to patent-eligible application (see Univ of Utah Research Found. vs Ambry Genetics Corp, F774 F.3d 755, 113 USPQ2d 1241 (2014), Id., at 1245) and Gottschalk vs Benson, 409 US 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972), Id., at 674)
Furthermore, nothing in the claims, understood in light of the original disclosure, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional signal acquisition unit and general-purpose computer for collecting data, analyzing and obtaining the desired information (unlike Thales 85- F.3d 1343, 121 USPQ2d 1898 (2017), Id., at 1898 where the inertial sensors are used in non-conventional manner for measuring position and orientation). For the claim in the instant application, and has been state above, the claim does not even recite any specific sensors.
Furthermore, the claims do not improve the functioning of any machines. The claims in the instant application with the various “unit” the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in said units as tools (as in Enfish), or focused on a specific asserted improvement in “detecting a state of a generic device”, in non-abstract way (or improvement in computer animation in non-abstract way, without animators able to do to same, as in McRo), but on certain independently abstract ideas that use those units as tools. In other words, the Applicant is basically claiming the algorithm itself.
Furthermore, the claims also do not improve any technology under the practical application guideline. At most, the claim is an improvement in the abstract idea of “detecting a state of a generic device”. However, improved or new abstract idea is still an abstract idea, and not eligible.
Finally, limiting the claims to the technological environment of battery and aircraft (as separately recited in the dependent claims), without the abstract idea being integrated into a practical application or without the additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, is insufficient to transform them into patent-eligible applications of the abstract ideas (Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token post-solution components did not make the concept patentable” Bilski v. Kappos, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (U.S. 2010).
For the reasons given above, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and the additional elements do not amount significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite the abstract idea of “detecting a state of a generic device”, without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights