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. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains the title of the invention and has several paragraphs . A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 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. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim includes a signal per se. The “readable information medium” should read “non-transitory computer readable medium” (or equivalent) in order to overcome this rejection. Claim s 1-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites “ A method of monitoring a system , the method being implemented by computer and comprising: a. a preparation phase comprising the following steps: i. obtaining time series, for at least one system of the same nature as the system to be monitored, each time series describing the time evolution of one or a plurality of predetermined parameters of the system considered between an initial instant and a final instant, the final instant being triggered by the occurrence of an abnormal event affecting the system in question, ii. for each time series, the definition of an abnormal time period and a normal time period, the end of the abnormal time period coinciding with the occurrence of the abnormal event, the normal time period being an earlier period having the same duration as the abnormal time period and such that the time gap between the normal time period and the abnormal time period is greater than a predetermined gap, iii. for each time series, the determination of a metric characterizing each parameter of the series considered, on the one hand over the abnormal time period, and on the other hand over the normal time period, iv. for a set of time series, called training series, the determination of association rules according to the characterizing metrics obtained for each parameter, each association rule predicting the occurrence or lack of occurrence of an abnormal event by associating data relating to the characterization metric of at least one parameter with the occurrence or lack of occurrence of the abnormal event, v. the validation of the association rules obtained on at least one time series, called test series, distinct from the training time series, b. an operating phase comprising the following steps: i. obtaining data relating to the time evolution of the predetermined parameter(s) of the system to be monitored, ii. predicting the occurrence or lack of occurrence of an abnormal event likely to affect the system based on the data obtained for the system to be monitored and the validated association rules . ” The underlined section of claim 1 represents the abstract idea, which is a method which may be performed as a mental process , as it is simply data monitoring and analysis without any recited functions which are beyond the scope of mental processing (See “… observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions …” in MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2) III. A.) . The non-underlined portion of claim 1 represents the only feature of the claim which is not a part of the judicial exception itself. However, “the method being implemented by a computer” is listed in MPEP 2106.04(d) I. as a limitation “ that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application ” (See “ Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) ”). Additionally, “the method being implemented by a computer” is listed in MPEP 2106.05 I. A. as a limitation “ that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception ” (See “ Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) ”). Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-14 are not found to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, because they all merely add definition to the judicial exception (or provide non-statutory subject matter in claim 14). Claim 8 is close to providing a practical application, but “generating an alert” and “initiating a system control action” are not recited with any specificity regarding the technological environment, which renders the broadest reasonable interpretation lacking any sufficient function, as the alert and control actions could merely be internal to computer operation. Claim 9 defines the system to be monitored, but this does not change the fact that the claimed method amounts to only “ observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions ” about the system as discussed above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 1, 5- 8 , and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Seck et al ( FR3066844A1 ) . Regarding claim 1 , Seck teaches a method of monitoring a system, the method being implemented by computer (Figures 1 and 4b; translation pages 4-9 ) and comprising: a. a preparation phase comprising the following steps: obtaining time series, for at least one system of the same nature as the system to be monitored, each time series describing the time evolution of one or a plurality of predetermined parameters of the system considered between an initial instant and a final instant, the final instant being triggered by the occurrence of an abnormal event affecting the system in question (page 5, including “… multitude of data from different sensors is recorded over a long period …”; page 6, including “… recording of the data from sensors during the learning period …” and “… time of occurrence of a failure …”) , for each time series, the definition of an abnormal time period and a normal time period, the end of the abnormal time period coinciding with the occurrence of the abnormal event, the normal time period being an earlier period having the same duration as the abnormal time period and such that the time gap between the normal time period and the abnormal time period is greater than a predetermined gap (page 6) , for each time series, the determination of a metric characterizing each parameter of the series considered, on the one hand over the abnormal time period, and on the other hand over the normal time period (pages 5-6, including “… mathematical processing brought to the point clouds coming from raw time-stamped data (for example integral, derivative, square or other of the analytical function representative of these raw data) followed as a function of time …” and “… mathematical treatment of this (its integral or its derivative, squared ...) or a combination of two quantities (sum, followed by the evolution of a first time-stamped quantity, according to a second quantity with the same time-stamp ) or a mathematical treatment of such a combination …”) , for a set of time series, called training series, the determination of association rules according to the characterizing metrics obtained for each parameter, each association rule predicting the occurrence or lack of occurrence of an abnormal event by associating data relating to the characterization metric of at least one parameter with the occurrence or lack of occurrence of the abnormal event ( s ee “ markers ” in pages 6-9) , the validation of the association rules obtained on at least one time series, called test series, distinct from the training time series (see markers in pages 6-9). Seck further teaches: b. an operating phase comprising the following steps: i. obtaining data relating to the time evolution of the predetermined parameter(s) of the system to be monitored, ii. predicting the occurrence or lack of occurrence of an abnormal event likely to affect the system based on the data obtained for the system to be monitored and the validated association rules (see discussion of prediction in pages 7-9) . Regarding claim 5 , Seck discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Seck teaches that during the validation step, a prediction is obtained for each of the association rules on the test time series considered, the final prediction being obtained by aggregating the predictions obtained for each of the association rules according to an aggregation criterion, the association rules being validated when the final prediction corresponds to the proven prediction of an abnormal event in the test time series (See combination of marker data and use of previous testing data for validation, in pages 8-9) . Regarding claim 6 , Seck discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Seck teaches that the association rules comprise rules predicting the occurrence of an abnormal event and rules predicting the absence of an abnormal event (see previously cited pages regarding “markers”) . Regarding claim 7 , Seck discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Seck teaches that the preparation phase comprises repeating the steps of determining association rules and validating for different sets of training time series so that each time series was once a test time series and during the other repetitions a training time series (see previously cited sections) . Regarding claim 8 , Seck discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Seck teaches that the operating phase comprises a step of generating an alert and/or initiating a system control action when an abnormal event is predicted (see alert on page 8) . Regarding claim 14 , Seck discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Seck teaches a non-transitory computer readable information medium on which a computer program product according to claim 1 is stored. 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. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seck et al ( FR3066844A1 ) in view of official notice . Regarding claim 9 , Seck discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, but does not teach that the system to be monitored is a distillation column and the abnormal event is a choking of the distillation column. The examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the general monitoring/testing/analysis art for a monitoring and analysis method which is used to predict abnormalities to be applied to a distillation column, since distillation columns are subject to abnormalities which must be diagnosed . Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Seck by applying the method to a distillation column since it is old and well known in the art, and since the general principles will apply to a vast array of systems which have sensors measuring time varying characteristics of the system during operation. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KEVIN R STECKBAUER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0433 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Thursday 9:30-7:30 PST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Logan Kraft can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5065 . 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. /KEVIN R STECKBAUER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747