DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 1-2, 4-9, 17, 19, 21-23, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In view of the new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019), the Examiner has considered the claims and has determined that under step 1, claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-15, 17, 19, and 21-23 are to a process, claim 27 is to an article of manufacture, and claim 28 is to a machine. Next under the new step 2A prong 1 analysis, the claims are considered to determine if they recite an abstract idea (judicial exception) under the following groupings: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, or (c) mental processes. The independent claims contain at least the following bolded limitations (see representative independent claims) that fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes:
1. A computer-implemented method for determining an anomalous event in a system, the method comprising:
defining a Bloom filter representing a plurality of predefined signatures each comprising a string of values and each being indicative of an anomalous event in the system;
receiving sensor data, from a plurality of sensors of the system, indicative of a plurality of operational parameters associated with the system;
determining, based on the received sensor data, a current signature comprising a string of values and being indicative of current operation of the system; and,
comparing the current signature to the predefined signatures to determine whether there is an anomalous event in the system, the comparison comprising applying the Bloom filter to the current signature.
28. A controller for controlling operation of a system, the controller being configured to:
define a Bloom filter representing a plurality of predefined signatures each comprising a string of values and each being indicative of an anomalous event in the system;
receive sensor data, from a plurality of sensors of the system, indicative of a plurality of operational parameters associated with the system;
determine, based on the received sensor data, a current signature comprising a string of values and being indicative of current operation of the system; and,
compare the current signature to the predefined signatures to determine whether there is an anomalous event in the system, the comparison comprising applying the Bloom filter to the current signature, and output a control action for the system in dependence on the comparison.
It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.). The limitations of "determining an anomalous event in a system" amount to a mental process to recognize information indicating an anomalous event, or a mathematical concept to solve for a value indicative of an anomalous event. The limitations to "define a Bloom filter representing a plurality of predefined signatures each comprising a string of values and each being indicative of an anomalous event in the system" amount to a mathematical concept to generate a probabilistic data structure (see published specification paragraph [0061]) containing a string of abstract data values. The limitations of "determining, based on the received sensor data, a current signature comprising a string of values and being indicative of current operation of the system" amount to a mental process to organize data by representing a plurality of sensor values as a string of values (which can equivalently be performed by a person writing down data values in a row on paper), or a mathematical concept if the generation of the current signature involves mathematical processing. The limitations of "comparing the current signature to the predefined signatures to determine whether there is an anomalous event in the system, the comparison comprising applying the Bloom filter to the current signature" amount to a mental process to compare between two sets of data, and a mathematical concept in the application of the Bloom filter to the current signature data values to generate an output of whether there is an anomalous event in the system. Thus, it is clear that there is some at least some recitation of abstract idea mental processes and mathematical calculations in at least the bolded sections above in the independent claims.
Next in step 2A prong 2, the independent claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements or combination of elements that 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, in order to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations have been identified and underlined above, and are not indicative of integration into a practical application because: (1)the recitations of "computer-implemented" or " a controller for controlling operation of a system, the controller being configured…" amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (2) the recitations "receiving sensor data, from a plurality of sensors of the system, indicative of a plurality of operational parameters associated with the system," amount to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); (3) the limitations of "and output a control action for the system in dependence on the comparison" amounts to a insignificant post-solution outputting activity to display a calculation output, which amount to activities tangential to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Next in step 2B, the independent claims are considered to determine if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
The recitations of "computer-implemented" or " a controller for controlling operation of a system, the controller being configured" are limitations that do not add significantly more as they amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The use of generic computer equipment is considered insignificant additional elements. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.07(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94). The recitations of "receiving sensor data, from a plurality of sensors of the system, indicative of a plurality of operational parameters associated with the system," do not add significantly more as they amount to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), as data must be gathered in any case and the data is not gathered using a particular physical measurement arrangement. The limitations of "and output a control action for the system in dependence on the comparison" does not add significantly more because such limitations amount to insignificant post-solution outputting activity to display a calculation output of a control action (versus actually carrying out a specific control action), as an activity tangential to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The MPEP states that when “Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output)”, the limitations can be mere data gathering or data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra- Solution Activity, in particular item (3)).
3. Dependent claims 2 and 19 recite some limitations out of a list that could amount to an integration into a practical application including clear physical actions of "automatically stopping operation of the system" or "automatically switching operation to a backup system." However, the control action in claims 2 and 19 could also comprise merely one of "transmitting an alert to a user," where such an option ultimately renders the claim as being directed non-patent eligible subject matter, as transmitting an alert amounts to post-solution data outputting activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Dependent claims 4-9, 17, and 21-23 contain additional limitations that amount to part of the judicial exception as they recite additional mathematical concepts and/or mental process comparison steps to manipulate the data, as well as insignificant post-solution data outputting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Dependent claim 28 describes limitations that do not provide an integration into a practical application or significantly more because they amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
4. Dependent claim 10 contains patent eligible subject matter because it describes a specific control action to automatically stop operation of the system based on a match, which amounts to an integration into a practical application. Dependent claims 12-15 depend from claim 10 and contain patent eligible subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 10.
5. An invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. Applications of such concepts "to a new and useful end" remain eligible for patent protection (see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67)). However, "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea" (see Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp. _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). There needs to be additional elements or combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception or render the claim as a whole to be significantly more than the exception itself in order to demonstrate “integration into a practical application” or an “inventive concept.” For instance, particular physical arrangements for actively obtaining the sensor data, or further physical applications using the calculated determination of an anomalous event in the system to drive a non-general transformation, change in physical operation, or repair/maintenance of a technology or technical process could provide integration into a practical application to demonstrate an improvement to the technology or technical field.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1-2, 4-9, 17, 19, 21-23, and 27-28 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. Claims 10 and 12-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 1, the closest prior art, Kundu (US Pat. Pub. 2019/0361839, hereinafter "Kundu") at least teaches a computer-implemented method for determining an anomalous event in a system (Kundu paragraph [0022] teaches a method implemented as one or more modules in a set of logic instructions (e.g., software) stored in a computer-readable storage medium, and Kundu abstract teaches a method for detecting a presence of an anomaly in a system), the method comprising:
defining a Bloom filter representing a plurality of predefined signatures (Kundu paragraph [0021] teaches an enhanced bloom filter (implemented as a weighted anomaly collector WAC) to store membership information (predefined signatures) for every alarm/anomaly) each comprising a string of values and each being indicative of an anomalous event in the system (Kundu paragraph [0025] teaches where the bloom filter allows the storage of a set of membership data spanning a large number of objects with a relatively small number of bits (string of values), and Kundu paragraph [0027] teaches also storing minimally coded information as part of the string of values to indicate an associated weight w value);
receiving sensor data, from a plurality of sensors of the system, indicative of a plurality of operational parameters associated with the system (Kundu paragraphs [0052] teach receiving a plurality of imaging data from front and rear camera sensors of the system, and paragraph [0087] teaches receiving sensor data from a plurality of sensors).8. However, claim 1 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Kundu et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2019/0361839) fails to anticipate or render obvious a computer-implemented method for determining an anomalous event in a system, the method comprising: determining, based on the received sensor data, a current signature comprising a string of values and being indicative of current operation of the system; and, comparing the current signature to the predefined signatures to determine whether there is an anomalous event in the system, the comparison comprising applying the Bloom filter to the current signature, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. Kundu does teach or reasonably suggest encoding the sensor data into a current signature comprising a string of values indicative of a current operation of the system, and applying the Bloom filter to such a string of values in a comparison to the predefined signatures. Rather Kundu detects an anomaly first, and then encodes the anomaly into the multi-level data structure of a weighted anomaly collector based on a bloom filter (see Kundu claim 1 and paragraph [0021]) without any subsequent comparisons.
Similarly, claim 28 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Kundu et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2019/0361839) fails to anticipate or render obvious a controller for controlling operation of a system, the controller being configured to: determine, based on the received sensor data, a current signature comprising a string of values and being indicative of current operation of the system; and, compare the current signature to the predefined signatures to determine whether there is an anomalous event in the system, the comparison comprising applying the Bloom filter to the current signature, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
9. Dependent claims 2, 4-10, 12-15, 17, 19, 21-23, and 27 depend from claim 1 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 1.
Pertinent Art
10. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
B. Yen et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2010/0058469) discloses Anomaly Information Distribution with Threshold. C. Datla et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2014/0040299) discloses Automated Method of Detecting Pattern Mismatches Between Converged Infrastructure Models and an Operating Converged Infrastructure.
D. Kroyzer et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2016/0330225) discloses Systems, Methods, and Devices for Detecting Anomalies in an Industrial Control System.
E. Zhang et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0041989) discloses System and Method for Monitoring Machine Anomalies Via Control Data.
F. Song et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0064822) discloses Unsupervised Anomaly Detection, Diagnosis, and Correction in Multivariate Time Series Data.
G. Dharmapurikar et al. (US Pat. No. 7,444,515) discloses Method and Apparatus for Detecting Predefined Signatures in Packet Payload Using Bloom Filters.
H. Harang et al. (US Pat. No. 10,291,633) discloses Bandwidth Conserving Signature Deployment with Signature Set and Network Security.
I. Martin et al. (US Pat. No. 10,926,888) discloses Methods and Systems for Identifying Associated Events in an Aircraft.
J. Ravikant et al. (Us Pat. No. 11,874,652) discloses Artificial Intelligence (AI) Based Anomaly Signatures Warning Recommendation system and Method.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1598. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F, 9:30 am to 6 pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 8/18/2026
Prosecution Insights