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 . The objections and prior art rejections from the Office Action of 6/1/2026 are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are, in Claims 1-20:
Data processing module
Data classification unit
Anomaly detection unit
Predictive maintenance unit
Cost optimization unit
Signal data fusion unit
Image data fusion unit
Signal data processing unit
Image data processing unit
Period analysis unit
Corresponding structure disclosed in the form of appropriately configured computer hardware or software [See Paragraph [0017] of the instant Specification – “the fusion detection system 1000 may be implemented by a hardware element or a software program in the edge server 33”].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18, 20-38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract ideas of a mathematical and/or mental activity algorithm for classifying sensor data (i.e., the operation of the data classification unit of Claim 1) and a mathematical and/or mental activity algorithm for processing sensor data to detect anomalies, plan predictive maintenance, and generate a cost optimization decision (i.e., the other elements of Claim 1). A combination of abstract ideas is an abstract idea [See MPEP 2106.05(I) – "Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no particular improvement to any particular device is accomplished through use of the algorithm. The recitation to provide predictive maintenance services is generic and non-specific and could amount to merely displaying algorithm results as a planning/scheduling suggestion without taking any concrete actions to improve the functioning of any devices.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the gathering and processing of the recited sensor data must be performed in order to implement the algorithm and thus amounts to the recitation of routine data gathering. The recited computer elements amount to the recitation of the elements of a general-purpose client-server computing environment for the performance of the algorithm and do not serve to amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself (see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)). The step of displaying the algorithm result amounts to the recitation of mere extra-solution activity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 21 are not rejected over prior art but are currently rejected under 35 USC 101. Were those rejections to be overcome, the following would be the Examiner’s reason for allowance:
Claim 1 is allowed because the closest prior art, Stubbs et al. (US 20210133607 A1), Burt et al. (US 20170003668 A1), Adendorff et al. (US 20170083822 A1), and Venegas et al., Towards the Automation of Infrared Thermography Inspections for Industrial Maintenance Applications, MDPI, 2022, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious a fusion detection system, comprising: a period analysis unit, for performing the following operations: updating the sensing data in response to the cost optimization decision and based on a first period, and controlling the updating unit to update the predictive maintenance model and the cost optimization model based on a third period; and updating the sensing data in response to the anomaly detection prediction result and based on a second period, and controlling the updating unit to update the anomaly detection model based on the third period, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Claim 21 is allowed because the closest prior art, Stubbs et al. (US 20210133607 A1), Burt et al. (US 20170003668 A1), Adendorff et al. (US 20170083822 A1), and Venegas et al., Towards the Automation of Infrared Thermography Inspections for Industrial Maintenance Applications, MDPI, 2022, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious a fusion detection method, comprising: updating the sensing data in response to the cost optimization decision and based on a first period, and controlling an updating unit to update the predictive maintenance model and the cost optimization model based on a third period, by a period analysis unit; and updating the sensing data in response to the anomaly detection prediction result and based on a second period, and controlling the updating unit to update the anomaly detection model based on the third period, by a period analysis unit, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
The claim amendments of 8/26/2026 overcome the claim objections and rejections under 35 USC 112 and 35 USC 103.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner agrees and the corresponding objections and rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
169
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image2.png
236
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
397
789
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Performing anomaly detection is part of the recitation of the abstract idea itself. The recitation to provide predictive maintenance services is generic and non-specific and could amount to merely displaying algorithm results as a planning/scheduling suggestion without taking any concrete actions to improve the functioning of any devices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yang et al., Computer Vision Technology for Monitoring of Indoor and Outdoor Environments and HVAC Equipment: A Review, MDPI, 7.6.2023
US 20240330451 A1 – MULTI-ACCESS EDGE COMPUTING FOR REMOTE LOCATIONS (See Fig. 2)[This reference is prior art based on the filing date of provisional application 63/324,863]
US 20140129178 A1 – Selecting Feature Types To Extract Based On Pre-Classification Of Sensor Measurements
US 20240296312 A1 – SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING A COMBINATION OF SENSOR MODALITIES BASED ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
US 20190005353 A1 – METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR TRAINING A NEURAL NETWORK TO CLASSIFY OBJECTS OR EVENTS
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).
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 KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights