DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are various “unit” in claims.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
4. Claims 1-12 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 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. 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 § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barre et al., US-PGPUB 2017/0003352 (hereinafter Barre)
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 [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) 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)
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 Claim 9. Barre discloses a display device, wherein the analysis unit is further configured to output the ascertained state of the device at the display device (Paragraph Fig. 1, Paragraphs [0052], [0139])
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 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barre, US-PGPUB 2017/0003352.
Regarding Claim 9 and 12. Barre discloses analysis unit is further configured to output the ascertained state of the device at the display device (Paragraph Fig. 1, Paragraphs [0052], [0139], display). Although Barre does not explicitly disclose a display device, it would have been obvious to have the display device to display the ascertained state of the device to easily understand said state visually.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barre, US-PGPUB 2017/0003352 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).
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 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.
10. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barre, US-PGPUB 2017/0003352 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 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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shin et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0191876
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