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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figures 2-4, the blank rectangular boxes should be provided with descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 1 is directed to a method, which is a process and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites obtaining a learning data stream from a physical system; incrementally computing principal components of the learning data stream; performing orthonormalization of the principal components computed so as to obtain an orthonormal base representing the learning data stream; and producing the anomaly detection model including the orthonormal base and a detection threshold defined by a user. The claim limitations require mathematical operations on observations and judgements based on the mathematical operations. The claim limitations fall into the mathematical concepts grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I) and the mental processes grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claim 1 does not recite any additional elements.
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because claim 1 does not recite any additional elements.
Per step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 does not recite any additional elements.
Claims 2-4 and 7 depend from claim 1 and recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 2-4 and 7 do not recite any additional elements. Since there are no recited additional elements, claims 2-4 and 7 are not integrated into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 5, 6 and 8 each recite a computer or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which is an additional element. The recitation of a computer or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the computer or non-transitory computer-readable storage medium does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 9 is directed to a method, which is a process and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 9 recites performing a vectorial projection of the data to be monitored onto an orthonormal base representing a learning data stream supplied by an anomaly detection model; computing energy of the data projected onto the orthonormal base; computing energy of the data to be monitored; computing an energy ratio between the computed energy of the data to be monitored and the computed energy of the data projected onto the orthonormal base; comparing the computed ratio with a detection threshold supplied by the anomaly detection model; and evaluating the data to be monitored as being normal data or abnormal data according to a result of the comparing. The claim limitations require mathematical calculations and making judgments based on the observation of the results of the mathematical calculations. The claim limitations fall into the mathematical concepts grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I) and the mental processes grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
The additional elements are obtaining a stream of data to be monitored from a sensor monitoring a physical system; and in response to evaluating the data as abnormal data, generating a notification indicating an anomaly within the physical system.
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Obtaining a stream of data from a sensor is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Generating a notification is insignificant post-solution activity, which is also insignificant extra-solution activity. When considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide for more than their individual functions.
Per step 2B, claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons. Further, the courts have recognized that gathering data and outputting a result is well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
Claim 10 recites a further additional element that the sensor is an accelerometer and the physical system comprises rotary machine. The accelerometer describes the data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, claim 10 is not integrated into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites a further additional element that the physical system comprises an electrical apparatus and the data to be monitored provides information related to an electric current consumed by the apparatus. The further description of the data to be monitored is still insignificant extra solution activity. Therefore, claim 11 is not integrated into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 12, 14 and 15 depend from claim 9 and recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 12, 14 and 15 do not recite any additional elements. Since there are no recited additional elements, claims 12, 14 and 15 are not integrated into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites a further additional element for generating an alert signal in order to notify detection of an anomaly. Generating an alert is insignificant extra-solution activity similar to generating an notification recited in claim 9. Therefore, claim 13 is not integrated into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 16 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. The recitation of a computer or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 17 is directed to microcontroller, which is a apparatus or product and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 17 recites to obtain a stream of data to be monitored; perform a vectorial projection of the data to be monitored onto an orthonormal base representing a learning data stream supplied by an anomaly detection model; compute energy of the data projected onto the orthonormal base; compute energy of the data to be monitored; compute an energy ratio between the computed energy of the data to be monitored and the computed energy of the data projected onto the orthonormal base; perform a comparison of the computed ratio with a detection threshold supplied by the anomaly detection model; and evaluate the data to be monitored as being normal data or abnormal data according to a result of the comparison.
The additional elements are a processing unit; and a non-transitory memory coupled to the processing unit and storing a computer program that includes instructions.
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The recitation of a processing unit and non-transitory memory amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Per step 2B, claim [ 8 ] does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason.
Claim 18 recites further additional elements for a physical system; and a sensor coupled to the physical system and the microcontroller. The physical system and sensor are recited at a high level of generality and are not more than generally linking the abstract idea to a general field of use. Therefore, claim 18 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 19 recites a further additional element for an alarm coupled to the microcontroller. The recitation of an alarm is insignificant extra-solution activity. When considered in combination with the other additional elements, the additional elements only provide their individual functions. Therefore, claim 19 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 20 recites a further additional element that the sensor comprises an accelerometer and the physical system comprises a rotary machine. The accelerometer describes the data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, claim 20 is not integrated into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 21 recites a further additional element that the physical system comprises an electrical apparatus and the data to be monitored provides information related to an electric current consumed by the apparatus. The further description of the data to be monitored is still insignificant extra solution activity. Therefore, claim 21 is not integrated into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 12,526,291 to Dutta et al. (Dutta).
Claim 1
With regard to obtaining a learning data stream from a physical system; Dutta teaches metrics that are provided as time-series data streams (col. 4, lines 32-46; col. 6, lines 30-43).
With regard to incrementally computing principal components of the learning data stream; Dutta teaches transforming physical dimensions to principal components (col. 4, line 47 – col. 5, line 6; col. 5, lines 32-53).
With regard to performing orthonormalization of the principal components computed so as to obtain an orthonormal base representing the learning data stream; Dutta teaches determining an orthonormal basis (col. 16, line 64 – col. 17, line 19).
With regard to producing the anomaly detection model including the orthonormal base and a detection threshold defined by a user; Dutta teaches training an selecting models to identify anomalies (Fig. 3, design phase, design engine 306, models 312, model selection 316; col. 16, lines 45-63; col. 14, lines 15-41).
Claim 5
Dutta teaches generating a computer program product for detecting anomalies comprising instructions which, when the computer program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to implement the anomaly detection model (col. 27, line 65 – col. 28, line 24).
Claim 6
Dutta teaches executing the computer program to perform real time anomaly detection of a real-world physical system (col. 9, lines 24-56; col. 19, lines 7-18).
Claim 8
Dutta teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program product for implementing the method (col. 27, line 65 – col. 28, line 24).
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) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0092021 to Nielsen et al. (Nielsen).
Claim 2
Dutta teaches all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 2 depends. Dutta does not teach that obtaining the learning data stream comprises using a sensor to monitor the physical system. Nielsen teaches sensor data (pars. 71, 76). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify anomaly detection, as taught by Dutta, to include sensor data, as taught by Nielsen, because system metrics would have been observed using well known detectors for analysis and anomaly detection.
Claim 7
Dutta teaches all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 7 depends. Dutta does not teach that the detection threshold is greater than or equal to 70%. Nielsen teaches a threshold value greater than a percentage (par. 127). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify anomaly detection, as taught by Dutta, to include a threshold value greater than a percentage, as taught by Nielsen, because then a well known method of detecting a anomaly would have been available.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0365155 to Borutta et al. (Borutta).
Claim 3
Dutta teaches all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 3 depends. Dutta does not teach that the incremental computing of the principal components of the data stream comprises using a method for analyzing covariance-free incremental principal components. Borutta teaches covariance free techniques for incremental principal components analysis (par. 53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify anomaly detection, as taught by Dutta, to include covariance free techniques, as taught by Borutta, because then high velocity data streams would have been sufficiently analyzed (Borutta, par. 53).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta in view of US Patent Application Publication 2005/0221514 to Pasadyn et al. (Pasadyn).
Claim 4
Dutta teaches all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 4 depends. Dutta does not teach that the orthonormalization comprises using a modified Gram-Schmidt algorithm using the principal components of the learning data stream. Pasadyn teaches a Gram-Schmidt orthonormalization (par. 141). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify anomaly detection, as taught by Dutta, to include Gram-Schmidt orthonormalization, as taught by Pasadyn, because a well known method of orthonormalization would have been available.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights