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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected below.
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 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 claims can be done as a mental process.
The claims obtain data for a measuring device, then determine a “significance level”, rank the obtained data, select portions of the data, then apply mathematical operations to said data and make a determination. All of these steps can be done in the human brain or with paper and pencil. Some of the claims state that this done in a computer, however, this is just automating a process without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) obtaining, determining, ranking, selecting and applying mathematical functions. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it is just done by a generic computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer is automating a mental process.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “high” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 states that a significance level is determined. It is unclear what this level is and it appears to be a relative term because it is unclear what is “significant “.
The data is then ranked and the highest is selected, however, it is unclear how it is ranked. Examiner assumes that once the significance level is further defined this will be clear.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the calculation value" in last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This seems to be very important because it ultimately defines if there is a failure or not. Examiner is unable to determine what this is or how to map it since the value and how it is calculated are unknown. Examiner notes that the same issues are present in the other independent claims and they are rejected for the same reason.
The dependent claims of any of the claim sets do not remedy the issues above and are rejected for the same reason.
Due the nature of the 35 USC 112 rejection the Examiner is unable to map the claims to prior art. However, Examiner believes that Wang (U.S. PG Pub. 2021/0232731) teaches most, if not all, of the independent claims. Examiner would also like to notes that some of the dependents such as claims 3-5 appear to be design choices. These limitations are also present in the other claims sets.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhang (U.S. PG Pub. 2025/0298688) teaches detection and remediation of sensor faults.
Sivaraman (U.S. PG Pub. 2024/0371136) teaches classifying sensor data.
Jung (U.S. Pat. 11,448,570) teaches detecting anomalies in high dimensional sensors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/NATHAN L LAUGHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights