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 additional sensor and drive limitation merely provide data for the recited analysis. The claim does not require the prediction to control or modify operation of the drive or improve the functioning of the computer or technology itself. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited claimed indices, fault risk determination and status are part of the abstract idea itself. The remaining elements gather data and implement the analysis at aa 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 and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
The dependent claims further limit the particular data, calculations, indices or parameters used in determine the fault risk. They further define the abstract analysis and do not recite an improvement to the technology and to not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or recite 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.
Claims 16-20 are directed toward a method similar to claim 1 and does not alter the 101 analysis. The additional limitations directed to determining unplanned downtime, availability time and number of faults for a plurality of the drives merely specify additional data that is collected and used in generating the claimed indices and fault risk determination. These limitations further define the information being analyzed but do not improve the functioning of the drive, sensor or computer itself or integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The claims are directed to the same judicial exception and do not recite significantly more.
The dependent claims further limit the particular data, calculations, indices or parameters used in determine the fault risk. They further define the abstract analysis and do not recite an improvement to the technology and to not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or recite significantly more. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
The additional elements recited by 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 "functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field." Specifically, the "determined fault risk," is determined based on the "at least one parameter" that is monitored by the "at least one sensor," the generated "first index," and the generated "second index." Moreover, the Specification at para. [0047]- [0048] describes that the first index is used to "reduce the impact of the amplification and accompany[ing] error, so that a more comprehensive value indicating the uncertainty level of occurrence of the fault is determined," and the second index is used to "reduce the influence of the low operation efficiency." Accordingly, amended claim 1 is directed to improvements in predicting the status of the "target drive," based on the "determined fault risk," as recited in amended claim 1. Therefore, amended claim 1 recites additional elements that reflect an improvement to the "functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field" that integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant claims that the first and second indices reduce errors or influences associated with the monitored parameters and thereby improve prediction of the targets drive status, the alleged improvement is to the accuracy or quality of the information produced by the recited analysis rather than to the functioning of the computer, sensor or target drive. The claim does not recite a particular improvement in computer functionality or require the determined risk or status prediction to control or modify the operation of the drive.
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 combination of elements of amended claim 1 reflects the addition of a specific limitation in "determining [the] risk of occurrence of the fault in the target drive based on the at least one parameter, the first index, and the second index," which is used to provide the "status prediction of the target drive" as output, to "reduce an unplanned downtime of the target drive from increased fault risks." This reflects the recitation of specific data structures that are utilized in a specific way 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 claimed senor and monitored drive parameters provide data for the recited analysis and constitute insignificant extra solution activity. The first and second indices are used in determining the fault risk and are therefor part of the abstract analysis itself. The claim uses generic computing components to collect and analyze information and output a prediction.
The claimed combination of obtaining sensor data, generating first and second indices, determining fault risk from those values and providing a status prediction represents the collection, analysis and output information. Applicant claims that this particular arrangement is not well understood, routine or conventional, the claim does not recite a specific technological implementation that changes the operation for the sensor or target drive, rather the alleged improvement is in the way the data is analyzed to generate the prediction. The additional element considered individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rejection does not rely on a finding that the particular claimed combination is well understood, routine or conventional. The claimed indices and risk determination are part of the abstract idea itself and the remaining additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior art Siebel (US 20180191867) discloses forward time-series data from sensors or smart devices. The system may include message decoders to receive messages comprising the time-series data and storing the messages on message queues. The system may include a persistence component to store the time-series data in a key-value store and store the relational data in a relational database. A predictive maintenance application is designed to continuously apply advanced machine learning techniques to update risk scores in real time. Operators are able to seamlessly analyze risk across millions of different, distributed equipment or systems (Abstract).
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
Prosecution Insights