DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Supplemental response and claims filed 6/9/2026.
Claims 7-10 have been preliminarily amended and claims 11-20 are newly added.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statements filed by applicant on 01/11/2024 and 09/24/2025.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Official Notice / Admitted Prior Art
With regard to claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, 13, the common knowledge previously declared to be well-known in the art is hereby taken to be Applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) because the Applicant failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice in any of the applicant’s responses (Remarks filed 3/25/2026 or 6/9/2026) to Non-Final Rejection (mailed 1/5/2026 relying on these Officially Noticed Facts of common knowledge declared to be well-known in the art). To adequately traverse such a finding, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CFR 1.111(b). See also Chevenard, 139 F.2d at 713, 60 USPQ at 241 (“[I]n the absence of any demand by Applicant for the examiner to produce authority for his statement, we will not consider this contention.”). A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice is inadequate. Support for the Applicant’s assertion should be included. Because Applicant failed to traverse Examiner’s Official Notice, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03(C).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 9, 10 recite in part the following: “…a source-end system backtracking rule associated with the to-be-analyzed attribute value, wherein the source-end system backtracking rule is used to represent a method for performing source-end system abnormality backtracking on the to-be-analyzed attribute value by using a control variate method; and determining whether the to-be-analyzed attribute value is a cause of the metering abnormality based on the source-end system backtracking rule…”
Respectfully, it is not clear what applicant’s “source-end system backtracking rule” is intended to encompass. The Specification at paragraph [00058] states: “…for example, the associated source-end system backtracking rule may be to acquire the monitoring data of the electric energy meter of the same manufacturer, the same production batch, and the same specification but mounted in different electric power units to determine whether there is abnormality or an increase in an abnormality rate; for another example, the associated source-end system backtracking rule may be to acquire the monitoring data of the electric energy meter of the same mounting position, the same manufacturer, and the same specification but of different mounting time to determine whether there is abnormality or an increase in an abnormality rate. The content of the source-end system backtracking rule is not limited in this embodiment of the present application.”
Respectfully, in view of the original disclosure which amounts to the limited examples of this “backtracking rule” as provided at [00058] of the Specification, the scope of what rules may be encompassed by this “backtracking rule” is not clear. Because the scope is not clear, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know when they are infringing applicant’s supposed invention. Therefore, the claims are held to be indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the feature in question to be the implementation of a generic control variate method which would enable a determination of whether the to-be-analyzed attribute value is a potential cause of metering abnormality.
Additionally, Claims 1, 9, and 10 recite in part the following:
“A metering abnormality analysis method performed by a computer device with a processor and a memory, and comprising: acquiring preliminary analysis data analyzed by a source-end system… filtering monitoring data of the source-end system based on the at least one data filtering rule to obtain target metering abnormality data;…”;
However, the claims also now recite in part the following description of the external source-end system:
“wherein the source-end system has functions comprising online data monitoring of electric power metering devices, misalignment monitoring of the electric power metering devices, and reception of customer complaints, and the source-end system is configured to acquire operation status data of the electric power metering devices in real time; the preliminary analysis data is used to represent analysis data obtained by the source-end system,…”
i.e. the recited computer device, which is recited as performing the claimed method, appears to be distinct from the “source-end system” from which the computer, executing the method, acquires data (e.g. the preliminary analysis data); therefore, the source-end system is external to the claimed computer and method implemented by such computer. Stated another way, the Applicant appears to be claiming a computer implemented method where the computer implementing the method is not affected by the source-end system itself from which the computer acquires the data. Although the method operates upon the acquired data, the computer and method as claimed are not altered by the description of the workings of the ”source-end system” itself. For example, the specification appears to only teach that the source-end system is distinct from the other processing components referenced in the disclosure, e.g. distinct from the “data acquisition module 42”, which per Specification at [00067] is taught as: “The data acquisition module 42 is configured to acquire the preliminary analysis data analyzed by the source-end system and determine at least one data filtering rule based on the preliminary analysis data. The filtering rule determination module 41 is configured to filter the monitoring data of the source-end system based on the data filtering rule to obtain the target metering abnormality data…” The Specification at [00086] notes that the modules and steps may be “…distributed in a network composed of multiple computing devices.” Therefore, a broadest reasonable interpretation is that the Applicant’s recitation of “a computer device” encompasses only an acquisition module, distinct from the source-end system. However, the same portion of the Specification indicates that it may be possible to integrate all steps within a single computing device and/or hardware. Therefore, there are mutually exclusive options and it is not clear which the applicant is attempting to claim.
Furthermore, Applicant’s amended claims, include a lot of description of this “source-end system” but no other portions of the claims make use of this description – i.e. the description of the source-end system appears to be non-functional to the method as claimed.
It is therefore not clear if Applicant is attempting to introduce a further limitation on the claimed method by this description of his source-end system (i.e. “wherein the source-end system has functions comprising online data monitoring of electric power metering devices, misalignment monitoring of the electric power metering devices, and reception of customer complaints, and the source-end system is configured to acquire operation status data of the electric power metering devices in real time; the preliminary analysis data is used to represent analysis data obtained by the source-end system,…”) For this reason, the claims are indefinite.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the description of the source-end system to be non-functional descriptive material and this is indicated as non-bold type face in the claims below.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 11, 13 inherit the deficiencies of their parent claim and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception) without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, the claims recite specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, as follows:
Per Independent claims 1, 9, 10:
determining at least one data filtering rule based on the preliminary analysis data
performing logic verification… or performing data consistency verification processing on the target metering abnormality data and deleting… data that does not conform to data consistency…
comparing the target metering abnormality data with preconfigured abnormal case data and determining at least one target case data from the preconfigured abnormal case data; and
performing multidimensional cluster analysis on the target metering abnormality data to obtain an aggregation level of the target metering abnormality data in a plurality of data dimensions
analyzing a cause of metering abnormality based on the at least one target case data and the aggregation level
performing risk grading…
generating risk warning information…
performing cluster analysis… merging data [to] obtain the aggregation level in the plurality of data dimensions.
Performing source-end system abnormality back-tracking [by] using a control variate method;
determining whether the to-be-analyzed attribute value is a cause of the metering abnormality based on the source-end system backtracking rule.
As noted supra, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Mathematical Concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations; mathematical calculations); Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion); and/or Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
That is, the steps are in general directed towards business analysis of equipment operations data to mitigate risk (e.g. mitigate abnormalities such as equipment failure, etc...) thus falling within at least Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity, as further shown below.
The determining a “data filtering rule” step, as drafted, is nothing more than a business decision regarding what data a business wishes to evaluate and this “filtering rule” appears to be arbitrary and left to the decision of a business manager, such as whom may be given charge of maintaining equipment. Thus, this step appears to fall within either Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity or Mental Processes or both. The logic or consistency verification steps are similarly found to fall within Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity. Note, no particular method or technique is required to be performed to infringe the steps as recited. These are only recited at the highest levels of generality. The same is true of the “performing risk grading…” and “generating risk warning information…” steps.
Regarding the "comparing" steps, such comparison may be considered a Mental Process as it can be performed in the human mind, or by a generic computer performing a generic function, when recited at this high level of generality. Furthermore, the decision to compare without any particular method for making the comparison and no particular relationship being provided between such desired comparison and the subsequent desired determination of a “target case data” when recited at this high-level of generality is nothing more than a business decision to select data based upon an arbitrary comparison thus also falling in Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity.
Regarding the “performing the multidimensional cluster analysis…” steps, thse are found to be nothing more than a business decision to use a generic mathematical concept for the purpose of performing a general class of mathematical calculations useful in data analysis (e.g. K-average clustering, or any of a number of other multidimensional clustering techniques). Thus, these steps appears to fall within Mathematical Concepts or Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity or both.
Finally, the step of “analyzing a cause of metering abnormality…” is either a Mental Process, because a person may make such an evaluation [analysis] of this sort either in their mind or via use of generic computer equipment performing a generic analysis function, or this feature falls within Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity, because this generic analysis is done for business purposes, e.g. to ascertain efficiency or abnormality of equipment operation for example. As no particular technique for implementing this analysis is recited, but instead the feature is only recited at this very high level of generality, it can be considered nothing more than an abstraction.
Furthermore, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computing equipment does not take the claim limitation out of the enumerated groupings. There being no technical problem being solved and no technical solution offered or recited for a technical problem, the Examiner finds the claims recite an abstract idea or combination thereof.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Although there are additional elements, other than those noted supra, recited in the claims, none of these additional element(s) or a combination of elements as recited in the claims apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As drafted, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts or, link them to a field of use (i.e. in this case business decision to analyze equipment operation data) or, serve as insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. data-gathering and collection). The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to implement the idea but are not technical in nature. Simply implementing the abstract idea on or with generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. These additional limitations are, those not specifically already mentioned supra.
However, these elements do not present a technical solution to a technical problem; i.e. Applicant’s invention is not a technique nor technical solution for “acquiring” data (i.e. data-gathering) nor is it “filtering” data nor is it any of the generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea. Instead, these features are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. a server) or insignificant pre-solution or insignificant extra-solution activity steps which are used to gather the set of data of interest to the business upon which the abstract idea is intended to operate. The additional elements do not recite a specific manner of performing any of the steps core to the already identified abstract idea.
Per Step 2B, the Examiner does not find that the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the claim. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the independent claims were considered as merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. a server) or insignificant pre-solution or extra-solution activity. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept; i.e. the same analysis applies here in 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and conventional data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. So, upon revaluating here in step 2B, these elements are determined to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. a server) and/or gather and transmit data which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; i.e. note the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as found supra, nor provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
As for the dependent claims, the dependent claims do recite a combination of additional elements. However, these claims as a whole, considered either independently or in combination with the parent claims, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application thereof nor do they provide an inventive concept.
For example, dependent claim 2 recites the following:
“…wherein the preliminary analysis data comprises at least one key indicator deviation item; and determining the at least one data filtering rule based on the preliminary analysis data comprises: acquiring a mapping relationship between a key indicator and indicator association information and determining target indicator association information corresponding to the at least one key indicator deviation item based on the mapping relationship; and acquiring a time period in which the at least one key indicator deviation item is generated and determining the at least one data filtering rule based on the time period and the target indicator association information.”
Respectfully, these features are not found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. The description of the data being analyzed does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. The idea that a data filtering rule can be determined from preliminary analysis data is itself part of the abstract idea; i.e. applicant hasn’t provided nor recited, and apparently has not contemplated, any particular mechanism for determining a data filtering rule given any particular set of preliminary analysis data. Instead, applicant leaves this up to the practitioner as something to figure out on one’s own. The same is true of the acquiring step; e.g. if acquiring is merely data-acquisition e.g. from a pre-populated data base, then this is just data-gathering. If applicant means a mapping-relationship must be determined, then this is part of the abstract idea as applicant has not provided the contour or method by which to determine or otherwise acquire such mapping relationship. The same is true of the other steps.
Therefore, the Examiner does not find that these additional claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Instead, these limitations, as a whole and in combination with the already recited claim elements of the parent claims, are not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. A similar finding is found for the remaining dependent claims.
For these reasons, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore the claims are not found to be patent eligible.
Please see the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 (found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hiruta et al. (US 2018/0011480 A1; hereinafter, "Hiruta") in view of Maruyama (US 2020/0333777 A1; hereinafter, "Maruyama") and Applicant Admitted Prior Art.
Claims 1, 9, 10 (Currently amended)
Pertaining to claims 1, 8, 9, 10 exemplified in the limitations of method claim 1, Hiruta as shown teaches the following:
A metering abnormality analysis method, performed by a computer device
with a processor and a memory, and comprising:
acquiring preliminary analysis data analyzed by a source-end system (Hiruta, see at least Figs. 3-4, 7, and [0048]-[0053], teaching, e.g.: “…the operation mode data creation unit 24 reads [acquiring] data [preliminary analysis data] acquired in the past for the selected measurement data from the sensor data storage unit 31 [source-end system], and displays a time-series data of the measurement data and a time-series change in the amplitude and the frequency thereof to the display device 42 (step S11). Here, the amplitude means a value obtained from an envelope curve of the sensor data and the frequency means a frequency obtained by frequency analysis (frequency conversion) of the sensor data sorted in a predetermined time.…”
PNG
media_image1.png
720
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
and determining at least one data filtering rule based on the preliminary analysis data (Hiruta, see citations noted supra, e.g. Fig. 7 regarding at least “boxes 521 for inputting the operation mode ID [a data filtering rule] of the operation mode”, in view of at least [0053], teaching, e.g.: “…For example, as illustrated in FIG. 7, in the operation mode definition screen 50, when the broken-line rectangle 51 that defines the range of the operation mode is input, a definition window 52 of the operation mode ID is also displayed in the operation mode definition screen 50. Input boxes 521 for inputting the operation mode ID [a data filtering rule] of the operation mode… and the like are displayed in the definition window 52…”);
wherein the source-end system has functions comprising online data monitoring of electric power metering devices, misalignment monitoring of the electric power metering devices, and reception of customer complaints, and the source-end system is configured to acquire operation status data of the electric power metering devices in real time; the preliminary analysis data is used to represent analysis data obtained by the source-end system (Examiner notes that this description of the source-end system is non-functional descriptive material as further explained supra under the 112(b) rejection, claim interpretation section), and the preliminary analysis data comprises at least one of the following key indicators: an acquisition success rate, an inaccuracy of an electric energy meter, a reverse flow of the electric energy meter, voltage phase failure, customer complaints, out-of-range line loss, a load overcapacity, and a sudden change in electric quantity (Hiruta, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per at least Figs. 3-4, 7, and [0048]-[0053], e.g. changes in electric quantity from sensor data)
filtering monitoring data of the source-end system based on the at least one data filtering rule to obtain target metering abnormality data (Hiruta, see citations noted supra, including [0061]-[0064], e.g.: “…As described above, the processing illustrated in FIG. 8 is [a process] of searching for whether or not the sensor data 311 [monitoring data] successively acquired at a predetermined time cycle matches any of the definition data of each operation mode [filtering rule] stored in the operation mode data storage unit 32…”; applicant’s “target metering abnormality data” reads on the time-series sensor data which Hiruta determines is a match to “definition data” corresponding to a stipulated “operation mode” [filtering rule].)
[,,,]
determining at least one target case data from the preconfigured abnormal case data (Hiruta, see at least Fig. 9, and at least [0067]-[0069] and [0080]-[0083], e.g.: “…In the example of FIG. 9, the abnormality diagnosis unit 23 selects [determines] and reads one row [at least one target case data] among rows including "1" in the column of the "operation mode ID" of the abnormality mode data 331 [from the preconfigured case data]. For example, data (data in which the abnormality mode is "scratch in inner ring of bearing" and the diagnosis procedure ID is "1") on the first row is read…”
PNG
media_image2.png
374
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
e.g.: “…the "operation mode ID" [filtering rule] is information for indicating the operation mode in which the "abnormality mode" can occur…”; Hiruta’s sensor data which matches a particular operation mode [filtering rule] therefore has an “operation mode ID”. This data is compared with data of Fig. 9, which is “a configuration of abnormality mode data 331” [preconfigured abnormal case data] to determine possible corresponding abnormality modes, e.g. “Abnormality Mode: Scratch In Inner Ring of Bearing” [target case data] is determined from a preconfigured set of possible abnormality modes, based on the identified operation mode ID “1”, e.g. as provided per Fig. 9. Note per [0069]: “Moreover, in the embodiment, the abnormality mode data 331 described above is data prepared in advance [i.e. it is preconfigured abnormal case data] based on experience and results of the abnormality diagnosis in the past performed by the expert familiar with the action or operation of the machine 1…”;see also at least [0081]-[0082]);
performing multidimensional cluster analysis on the target metering abnormality data to obtain an aggregation level of the target metering abnormality data in a plurality of data dimensions (Hiruta, see citations noted supra, e.g. Figs. 10-11, e.g. S46-S48 of Fig. 11 in view of at least [0073]-[0077] teaching, e.g.: “…In the example of FIG. 10, as the "algorithm", it is indicated that cluster analysis of "K average method" [a multidimensional cluster analysis] is used and is stored in "cluster information [aggregation level data of the target metering abnormality data in a plurality of dimensions] in Datafile0" used in the cluster analysis as attached information… Moreover, in the cluster analysis, n pieces of the measurement data [target metering abnormality data] designated in the "sensor" are acquired for each predetermined time so that an n-dimensional [multidimensional] vector space is assumed in which the n pieces of the measurement data are components. In the n-dimensional vector space, cluster information [aggregation level information] is created using the measurement data having n components of each time acquired in the past. That is, the measurement data having the n components at each time is divided into each cluster in the n-dimensional vector space. In the embodiment, the cluster information [aggregation level data of the target metering abnormality data in a plurality of dimensions] (for example, Datafile0) is created by the operation mode of the machine 1…”) and analyzing a cause of metering abnormality based on the at least one target case data and the aggregation level (Hiruta, see citations noted supra, further in view of e.g. [0081]-[0085] regarding: “…diagnosing [analyzing] the presence [a cause] or absence of the abnormality mode that is "scratch in inner ring of bearing" [the at least one target case data]…”; the diagnosis is based on the cluster information [the aggregation level data] created via “the cluster analysis of the “K average method””.)
[…]
wherein performing the multidimensional cluster analysis on the target metering abnormality data to obtain the aggregation level of the target metering abnormality data in the plurality of data dimensions comprises: acquiring an attribute value corresponding to attribute information in the target metering abnormality data(Hiruta, see citations noted supra, e.g. Fig. 7 amplitude and frequency [attributes] of measured current in the sensor data); performing cluster analysis on the attribute value by using a cluster analysis model to obtain an aggregation level corresponding to the attribute information in each of the plurality of data dimensions (Hiruta, see citations noted supra, e.g. per at least [0075]-[0077] and [0083] cluster analysis, e.g. via “K average method” is performed); and merging the aggregation level corresponding to the attribute information in the each of the plurality of data dimensions to obtain the aggregation level in the plurality of data dimensions (Hiruta, see citations noted supra, again e.g. per [0075]-[0077]: “…in the cluster analysis, n pieces [aggregation level corresponding to the attribute information] of the measurement data designated in the "sensor" are acquired for each predetermined time so that an n-dimensional vector space [aggregation of the attribute information] is assumed in which the n pieces of the measurement data are components [i.e. a level comprised of the aggregate of the attribute data]. In the n-dimensional vector space, cluster information is created using the measurement data having n components of each time acquired in the past. That is, the measurement data having the n components at each time is divided into each cluster in then-dimensional vector space…”);
[…]
Although Hiruta teaches the above limitations and teaches, e.g. again per at least Fig. 9 and [0069]: “…the abnormality mode data 331 [abnormal case data] described above is data prepared in advance [is preconfigured abnormal case data] based on experience and results of the abnormality diagnosis in the past performed by the expert familiar with the action or operation of the machine 1…”; and Hiruta teaches, also as shown supra, per [0061]-[0069] and at least [0080]-[0083], that he compares his determined “operation mode”, of his acquired time-series sensor data [target metering abnormality data] which matches definition data corresponding to a stipulated operation mode, with the abnormality mode data 331 [abnormal case data] for the purpose of selecting at least one set of data related to known “abnormality modes” [abnormal cases], e.g. the abnormality mode “Scratch In Inner Ring Of Bearing” and Hiruta discusses techniques of diagnosis, such as k-means clustering. Hiruta, may not explicitly teach that he directly compares his acquired time-series sensor data [target metering abnormality data], which matches definition data corresponding to a stipulated operation mode, with his abnormality mode data 331 [abnormal case data] or the underlying time-series definition data for the abnormality mode data. Therefore, the difference between the limitation in question and the teachings of the prior art is that Hiruta per the noted citations discloses a type of classification, i.e. his operation mode, of his acquired time-series sensor data [target metering abnormality data] to represent this acquired time series sensor data in making his comparison with his abnormality mode data 331 [abnormal case data], which itself is a compact representation of many different sets, i.e. cases, of abnormal data. However, Examiner finds that direct comparison of the underlying time series data with data indicating abnormal cases is explicitly taught, as shown below by Hiruta in view Maruyama:
performing data logic verification processing on the target metering abnormality data and deleting target metering abnormality data that does not conform to data logic in the target metering abnormality data; or performing data consistency verification processing on the target metering abnormality data and deleting target metering abnormality data that does not conform to data consistency in the target metering abnormality data (Maruyama, see at least Figs. 2, 5, and [0093] in view of [0102], e.g.: “…The abnormality score calculator 206 sets a predetermined confidence interval (for example, 95%) [data logic verification] of the predictive value as the threshold. The abnormality score calculator 206 may set predetermined probability of distribution acquired by trimming the calculated abnormality score to remove [deleting] the outliers [target metering abnormality data that does not conform to data logic] as the abnormality determination line, that is, the threshold. As another example, the abnormality score calculator 206 may determine abnormality and normality in an unsupervised state by machine learning using a support vector machine or the like, to set the threshold. The detection unit 208 (described later) detects whether abnormality exists in accordance with whether the summary value falls within the set threshold.);
comparing the target metering abnormality data with preconfigured abnormal case data (Maruyama, see at least Figs. 4-5 showing a tabular and graphical comparison of target sensor [metering] data which has potential abnormalities [i.e. target metering abnormality data] with predicted upper and lower thresholds corresponding to abnormal cases [preconfigured abnormal case data]; see also at least [0125]-[0139], e.g.: “…FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating an example of information output by the abnormality detection method according to the first embodiment. The example of FIG. 5 plots results of 20 runs executed in a day in the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus 4. Part (A) of FIG. 5 illustrates the summary values in the respective runs and the upper and the lower limit thresholds set based on the predictive value. The upper and the lower limit thresholds are set based on a predetermined confidence interval of the predictive value, approximately 95% in this example. In the example of FIG. 5, the predictive value is calculated in the first predictive value generator 204 using a Kalman filter…”
PNG
media_image3.png
412
990
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
performing risk grading on the metering abnormality according to a preset classification and grading strategy based on the cause of the metering abnormality to obtain a metering abnormality risk level (Maruyama, see citations noted supra, including also at least Fig. 2(b) and [0091]-[0096], e.g.: “…The abnormality score calculator 206 calculates an abnormality score [risk grading] serving as an index of presence/absence of abnormality… The abnormality score is an element obtained by scoring the possibility of occurrence of abnormality at each point in time of the [manufacturing] apparatus 4 based on the predictive value [preset classification]…”); in response to the metering abnormality risk level exceeding a risk level threshold, generating risk warning information by using a language model (Maruyama, see citations noted supra, including also at least [0107]-[0110]: “…When the detection unit 208 determines that one of the abnormality score and the change score has exceeded the threshold, the detection unit 208 notifies the warning unit 209 thereof… The warning unit 209 transmits a warning to the remote server 3 through the communication unit 10 [language model],…”; applicant’s entire specification appears to be devoid of any particular “language model” and therefore this reads on Hiruta’s “communication unit” as some language is required to be used to execute “communication” even if it is a computer language.); and sending the risk warning information to a maintenance end through a preset risk warning interface, wherein the preset risk warning interface is a network interface of a peripheral communication unit that completes data communication in a wired or wireless manner ((Maruyama, see citations noted supra, e.g. again at least [0107]-[0110], e.g.: “…[0110] The warning unit 209 [warning interface] transmits a warning [risk warning information] to the remote server 3 [a maintenance end] through the communication unit 10, in accordance with notification from the detection unit 208. The warning unit 209 transmits warnings distinguishing the case of notifying the first level abnormality, the case of notifying the second level abnormality, and the case of notifying the third level abnormality from each other…”)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying known techniques of Maruyama (directed towards: a technique of pre-processing data to be used in determining abnormalities in sensor data involving removal [deleting] of outlier data [target metering abnormality data that does not conform to data logic] as an abnormality determination line, that is, a threshold for data validity; and a technique of comparing time series data [target metering abnormality data] with predicted data for upper and lower thresholds of abnormal cases [preconfigured abnormal case data]; and techniques of using an abnormality score calculator to calculate an abnormality score [risk grading] serving as an index of presence/absence of abnormality and sending a warning to a server/user interface when such abnormality score surpasses a preset threshold) which are applicable to a known base device/method of Hiruta (already directed towards detecting and determining abnormalities in time series data) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of Maruyama to the device/method of Hiruta in order to perform the limitations in question because Hiruta and Maruyama are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G05B23 e.g. /0208) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Furthermore, although Hiruta/Maruyama teaches the above limitations upon which the following nuanced features depend, and Hiruta has been shown to teach applicant’s multidimensional cluster analysis, they may not explicitly teach all of the below recited nuances. However, regarding these features Hiruta in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art teaches the following:
wherein after performing the multidimensional cluster analysis on the target metering abnormality data to obtain the aggregation level of the target metering abnormality data in the plurality of data dimensions, the method further comprises:
sorting an aggregation level in at least one of the plurality of data dimensions in a descending order and acquiring a to-be-analyzed attribute value having a highest aggregation level in each of the at least one of the plurality of data dimensions (Hiruta, see citations noted supra, including again at least [0073], teaching: “K average method” is used together with “main component analysis” as algorithms for abnormality detection. Examiner notes that another term for Hiruta’s “main component analysis” is “principle component analysis” which is a technique understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to require sorting – i.e. Applicant Admitted Prior Art: It was old and well-known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that after finding eigenvectors (principal components) and their corresponding eigenvalues (representations of variability) from the covariance matrix, the PCA technique requires sorting the eigenvalues in descending order, then selecting the top k eigenvectors [to-be-analyzed attribute values having a highest aggregation level] to form a new, lower-dimensional feature space, effectively reducing complexity while retaining most data variance. Furthermore, because PCA reduces high-dimensional data into fewer, more meaningful components the K-average or K-Means clustering is applied, as noted by Hiruta per at least [0073]-[0083], to these reduced components to find groups (clusters) in the data. Hiruta’s use of PCA handles complex feature reduction, while his use of K-average method finds the clusters of these components [aggregation levels], based on the PCA scores, which simplifies the complex datasets.)
Therefore, in view of these teachings, the Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the aforementioned implications of Hiruta’s teachings and, as part of implementing Hiruta’s “main component analysis”, i.e. implementing PCA “principle component analysis”, perform a step of “sorting” the principal components [aggregation levels], in at least one of a plurality of noted n-dimensions to acquire a sorted list of to-be-analyzed components corresponding to highest variability components [highest aggregation level] because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.);
Furthermore, although Hiruta in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art teaches the aforementioned features, Hiruta may not explicitly delve into the minutia of implementing a control variate technique as recited below. However, regarding this feature, Examiner finds that Hiruta in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art teaches the following:
acquiring a source-end system backtracking rule associated with the to-be-analyzed attribute value, wherein the source-end system backtracking rule is used to represent a method for performing source-end system abnormality backtracking on the to-be-analyzed attribute value by using a control variate method; and determining whether the to-be-analyzed attribute value is a cause of the metering abnormality based on the source-end system backtracking rule (Examiner notes the 112(b) rejection guiding claim interpretation. Applicant Admitted Prior Art facts: Control Variate technique1 was an old and well-known technique to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and this technique, being a type of variance reduction technique, exploits information about errors in estimates of known quantities to reduce the error of an estimate of an unknown quantity and fulfills all the steps recited supra of applicant’s limitations; e.g. see "Variance Reduction" by Botev and Ridder as noted in the footnote provided below.)
and deleting a to-be-analyzed attribute value not corresponding to the cause of the metering abnormality. ((Examiner finds it to be within the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that attributes which are found to not be significantly important need not be further analyzed and therefore may be deleted from any pending analysis. For example, as a well-known saying goes, “what does that [an attribute value not corresponding to the cause of the market price of tea in China] have to do with the price of tea in China?” Which implies that whatever variable or attribute that is inconsequential need not be considered further. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have removed or deleted from their analysis any attribute value found to not significantly correspond to the cause of Hiruta’s metering abnormality so as to not waste time and resources on inconsequential issues/attributes.)
Therefore, in view of these findings and because Hiruta is interested in estimating the error in sensor data [i.e. applicant’s unknown quantity] and Hiruta has information about errors in estimates of known quantities [e.g. his abnormality mode data] it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have recognized the applicability of this Control Variate technique to the data analysis system/method of Hiruta to determine whether a to-be-analyzed attribute value is a cause of the metering abnormality based on a source-end system backtracking rule and if found to not significantly correspond to the cause of metering abnormality, remove or delete such attribute from further analysis because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.
Claims 2, 11: (Original)
Hiruta/Maruyama/AAPA teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, Hiruta teaches the following:
…wherein the preliminary analysis data comprises at least one key indicator deviation item (Hiruta, see at least Fig. 14, depicting deviations in time-series data from expected reference data; applicant’s “key indicator deviation item” reads on the data abnormalities, i.e. deviations from expected, in Hiruta’s time series data; this is the data which is being analyzed.); and determining the at least one data filtering rule based on the preliminary analysis data comprises: acquiring a mapping relationship between a key indicator and indicator association information and determining target indicator association information corresponding to the at least one key indicator deviation item based on the mapping relationship (Hiruta, see citations noted supra, including again at least [0067]: “…the "operation mode ID" [data filtering rule] is information for indicating [mapping relationship] the operation mode [indicator association information] in which the "abnormality mode" can occur…”); and acquiring a time period in which the at least one key indicator deviation item is generated and determining the at least one data filtering rule based on the time period and the target indicator association information (Hiruta, see again [0067] and at least Figs. 7, 9, and 13, e.g. #74 of Fig. 13 is a time at which abnormality is indicated to occur and the box #75 represents the time period [time period] for analysis in which the abnormality. The "operation mode ID" [data filtering rule] is based on the “operation mode” [indicator association information] in which the "abnormality mode" can occur. In addition, the "diagnosis procedure ID" is information for identifying the diagnosis procedure information for detecting the "abnormality mode"…”
PNG
media_image4.png
718
708
media_image4.png
Greyscale
).
Claims 4, 13: (Original)
Hiruta/Maruyama/AAPA teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, Hiruta teaches the following:
…acquiring case attribute information of the abnormal case data, matching the case attribute information with to-be-matched attribute information of the target metering abnormality data to determine target attribute information from the to-be-matched attribute information (Hiruta, see citations noted supra, e.g. Fig. 9 and associated disclosure:
PNG
media_image5.png
388
594
media_image5.png
Greyscale
); and performing similarity calculation based on an attribute value corresponding to the target attribute information and an attribute value corresponding to the case attribute information and determining abnormal case data corresponding to case attribute information whose similarity is greater than a threshold as the at least one target case data (Hiruta, see citations noted supra, including Fig. 10 and associated disclosure such as [0077]: “…In the cluster analysis, the "abnormality degree" is defined as a Euclidean distance between a position represented by the measurement data of each time and a center of the cluster closest [similarity calculation] to the position in then-dimensional vector space… in a case where the abnormality degree is 3 or more and 3 seconds or more [greater than a threshold], it is regarded as the abnormality of the machine 1…”
PNG
media_image6.png
454
624
media_image6.png
Greyscale
).
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claims 1, 9, 10 and canceled claims 3, 5-8, 12, 14-20 on 06/09/2026. Applicant's arguments (hereinafter “Remarks”) also filed 06/09/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments. Note the new 35 USC 101, 112(b), and 103 rejections with Hiruta in view of Maruyama and Applicant Admitted Prior Art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. 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.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
1 Botev, Z.; Ridder, A. (2017). "Variance Reduction". Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online. pp. 1–6. doi:10.1002/9781118445112.stat07975. hdl:1959.4/unsworks_50616. ISBN 9781118445112.
