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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Amendments filed on 07/28/2026, wherein Claims 1, 5, and 7 have been amended. Claims 1-9 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Examiner’s objections: Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 07/28/2026 with respect to the objections to claims 1, 5, 7, and 9, have been fully considered. In view of the amendments to the Claims addressing the informalities raised in the previous Office Action, the objections to the Claims have been withdrawn.
Regarding 35 USC 112(b) rejection: Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 07/28/2026 with respect to the 112(b) rejection to claims 1-9, have been fully considered and found persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding 35 USC 101 rejection: Applicant's arguments filed on 07/28/2026, with respect to 35 USC 101 rejection, have been fully considered but found not persuasive.
In page 6, Applicant states: “The claimed system does not merely apply abstract calculations in a generalized computer environment. Rather, all the calculations are performed on actual, physical sensor measurements taken in real time from operating industrial devices” and “The abnormality degree is calculated based on the statistical distance (Mahalanobis distance) between the reference data and the inspection data. This is not an abstract computation - it is the specific quantification of the degree to which the current operating condition of a physical machine deviates from its normal reference operating condition, as measured by physical sensors during actual operation”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is still mathematical calculations and data manipulation, which is not eligible.
In page 8, Applicant states: “As amended, claim 1 reinforces this specific technical mechanism: the threshold value arithmetic operation unit uses a "first portion" of the data "within a first threshold value range" as reference data, and the abnormality degree arithmetic operation unit uses a "second portion" "within a second threshold value range that is less than the first threshold range" as inspection data” and “This is a concrete improvement in the technology of industrial machine diagnosis - not merely the application of an abstract mathematical idea to a generic computing environment.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no improvement in technology, just simple data manipulation. Also, generic computer is not a particular machine.
There is no technological advancement in the claims, no improvement for the process.
Practical application must be shown using meaningful additional elements. The additional elements, cited by the Applicant, are recited in generality and do not recite particular machines applying or being used by the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05, specifically about the particular machine: see part I, The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus; Part II, Whether the machine or apparatus implements the steps of the method, and Part III, Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity of a field-of use). Prior art cited in the rejection shows claimed additional elements as well-known in the art, routine and conventional.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the
four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a product.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the
examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that
the abstract idea belongs to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical
concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Independent Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an
abstract idea highlighted in bold; the remaining limitations are ''additional elements''.
A device diagnosis system comprising:
a threshold value arithmetic operation unit that uses a first portion of time-series of a physical quantity data measured within a first threshold value range during an operation of a device as reference data, based on a plurality of threshold values with respect to the reference data;
a data division unit that divides the time-series data that match conditions based on the plurality of threshold values as statuses of respective ranges;
a feature arithmetic operation unit that calculates a value of a feature of the time-series data in each status; and
an abnormality degree arithmetic operation unit that uses a second portion of the time-series data of the physical quantity measured within a second threshold value range that is less than the first threshold range during the operation of the device as inspection data, and that analyzes and calculates an abnormality degree which is a degree of an abnormality of the inspection data for the each status by using the feature with respect to the inspection data.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
For example, the steps highlighted in bold are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical concept grouping.
Prong 2 of Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite additional elements or a combination of additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This requires additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
In Claim 1, the additional elements (see non highlighted text) are not qualified for a meaningful limitation because they generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. In addition, a threshold value arithmetic operation unit, a feature arithmetic operation unit, a data division unit, a feature arithmetic operation unit, and an abnormality degree arithmetic operation unit (all parts of a generic computer) are generally recited and do not qualify as a particular machine.
Similar limitations (“a first portion of time-series data of a physical quantity measured within a first threshold value range during an operation of a device as reference data” and “a second portion of the time-series data of the physical quantity measured within a second threshold value range that is less than the first threshold range during the operation of the device as inspection data”) are also generally recited and/or add extra-solution activities to the judicial exception.
The preamble of Claim 1: “A device diagnosis system comprising” is a generically recited preamble.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, when considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Under Step 2B, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2A, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Essentially, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because they are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art of US20220334030 to Yoshinaga (hereinafter Yoshinaga) and US20210097438 to Matsumoto et al. (hereinafter Matsumoto).
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-9 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (Step 2A, Prong One), recite no additional elements reflecting a practical application (Step2A, Prong Two), and fail a “significantly more” test under the step 2B for the same reasons as discussed with regards to the independent claims.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Claim 1 includes the allowable subject matter. If the 101 issues are resolved, Claim 1, and dependent claims 2-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101, set forth in this Office Action.
In regards to independent Claim 1, the teachings of Yoshinaga, Matsumoto, Sekine, Marvasti, Nakamura, and Jones combined show all the elements of the claim except “calculates a value of a feature of the time-series data in each status; and an abnormality degree arithmetic operation unit that uses a second portion of the time-series data of the physical quantity measured within a second threshold value range that is less than the first threshold range during the operation of the device as inspection data, and that analyzes and calculates an abnormality degree which is a degree of an abnormality of the inspection data for the each status by using the feature with respect to the inspection data”, in combination with the rest of the claim’s limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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).
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 Lyudmila Zaykova-Feldman whose telephone number is (469)295-9269. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:30pm, Monday through Friday.
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.
/LYUDMILA ZAYKOVA-FELDMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights