DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites obtaining sensor information and determining a risk of occurrence of a fault in the drive based on the first and second index. These limitations describe mental process (observation and judgments). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation this covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Metal Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 1-8 (Process), claims 9-13 (machine), and claims 14 and 15 (manufacture).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps of obtaining a first and second index associated with operating and maintenance information of the target drives is considered data gathering, which is considered mere data gathering, which is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because using processors, modules and drives for mere data collection and risk assessment is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements include at least one sensor and monitored parameters of a drive. These elements merely provide data to be used in the abstract analysis. The claim does not provide any improvement to the functioning of the drive, sensors or computer technology. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons as listed above. The additional limitations are merely reciting mathematical concepts or additional data analysis. The limitations are abstract ideas or data gathering steps that are well understood, routine and conventional in the field of and do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 9-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 9-13 are directed toward an apparatus comprising a modules. Applicant’s specification ¶0022, discloses exemplary embodiments of the present invention being disclosed as a software. All of the elements would reasonably be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the disclosure as software, such that the system/apparatus is software, per se. As such, the claim is not limited to statutory subject matter and is therefore non-statutory.
Claim 15 recites a “A computer program product.” A program product does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). As such, the claim is not limited to statutory subject matter and is therefore non-statutory. Examiner suggest amending the claim to include a computer-readable storage medium.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 6-8, 10, 11 and 13 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. All outstanding rejections must be overcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
A claim that recites a judicial exception is not directed to that judicial exception if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP § 2106.04 (emphasis added).) If the claim provides an improvement to computer functionality, the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application within that technological field, and the claim as a whole is transformed into patent-eligible subject matter. (MPEP § 2106.04(d).)
The additional limitations of amended claim 1 integrate the claims into a practical application because the claim, when viewed as a whole, is directed to an improvement in the technological field of fault prediction in drives such as the "target drive," as recited in amended claim 1. The Specification at para. [0047]-[0048] describes that the first index and the second index are used to reduce the impact of error in the determined risk. Therefore, the obtained "first index" and the "second index" each being utilized to reduce the influence of the "first parameter" and the "second parameter" in determining the "risk of occurrence of a fault in the target drive" reflects an improvement to the technological field that integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. II. The Additional Limitations Recite Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea Under Step 2B.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim remain directed to collecting information, performing analysis and reporting a result. The claims do not recite any improvement to the operation of the drive, sensors or computer technology. The claims merely collect data, analyze the data and report a result. Applicant’s stated benefit is in the abstract analysis itself rather than a technological improvement. Therefore the claimed improvement does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant states:
A claim may recite significantly more than any abstract idea where the claim recites additional elements or a combination of elements and "if the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility." (MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Here, the additional limitations of amended claim 1 reflect the addition of specific hardware (e.g., at least one sensor) and electronic sensor signals (e.g., at least one sensor signal) that monitor parameters (e.g., at least one parameter) of the target drive, and the obtained "first index" and the "second index" are utilized to reduce the influence of the "first parameter and the second parameter" in determining the "risk of occurrence of fault in the target drive." This reflects the recitation of specific data structures which are utilized in a specific way to output the determination of the "risk of occurrence of fault in the target drive," that is neither routine, conventional, nor well-understood in the field. Accordingly, the claims are eligible at Step 2B, as well as Step 2A, Prong Two.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recitation of sensors and electronic signals merely provide data for the claimed analysis and does not result in a change to the operation of the drive, sensors or computer itself. The use of data structures to reduce the influence reflects an improvement in the evaluation itself rather than integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Receiving data, organizing into indices and apply calculations to determine risk are well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions. The 101 rejection is maintained.
With respect to the 102 prior art rejection, Examiner agrees with applicant that prior art Inagaki does not disclose "determining a risk of occurrence of a fault in the target drive based on the at least one parameter, the first index, and the second index," and "wherein each of the first index and the second index are configured to reduce an influence of the first parameter and the second parameter in determining the risk of occurrence of the fault in the target drive," as recited in amended claim 1.
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 CHARLES EHNE whose telephone number is (571)272-2471. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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.
/CHARLES EHNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113