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 .
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations “means for” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language “storing, acquiring, etc.” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim 6 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
According to MPEP 2181, II, B, “In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
… the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement the disclosed algorithm to achieve the claimed function. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1242.”
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the monitoring device, its functional blocks and the corresponding algorithms for performing the claimed functions as described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation(s): Fig.1 and [0022-0033], as published.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 7 is directed to a program (software code per se), and, therefore, is considered to be non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 (See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p.1-7.
Regarding Claim 7, the examiner suggests a preamble as follows:
"A non-transitory computer readable medium encoded with a computer program causing a computer to execute a process… "
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 1-7 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A monitoring method comprising: a step of acquiring unit space creation data, which is detected by a plurality of sensors provided in a plant and is for creating a plurality of unit spaces that are predetermined depending on an operation mode and/or a monitoring target; a step of creating the plurality of unit spaces based on the unit space creation data detected by the sensor required for creating each of the unit spaces; a step of acquiring evaluation data, which is detected by the plurality of sensors and is an aggregate of data for evaluating a state of the plant; a step of obtaining a Mahalanobis distance of the evaluation data based on at least some of the plurality of unit spaces; a step of determining the state of the plant based on the Mahalanobis distance and on a predetermined threshold value; and a step of estimating a factor of an abnormality when the abnormality is determined in the step of determining the state of the plant, wherein the step of estimating the factor of the abnormality includes a step of allocating, for each of the unit spaces used for determining the state, each of the sensors used for creating the unit space to a two-level orthogonal array with a use of the sensor as a first level and a non-use of the sensor as a second level to create an orthogonal array for each of the unit spaces, a step of calculating a larger-is-better SN ratio of each row of the orthogonal array for each of the orthogonal arrays for each of the unit spaces, a step of calculating an SN ratio gain by calculating a difference between a total value of the larger-is-better SN ratios at the first level and a total value of the larger-is-better SN ratios at the second level for each of the sensors in each of the orthogonal arrays for each of the unit spaces, and a step of specifying the sensor for which the SN ratio gain exceeding a predetermined threshold value for the SN ratio gain is calculated as a sensor related to the factor of the abnormality, based on the SN ratio gain calculated for each of the sensors and on the threshold value for the SN ratio gain.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the 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. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “obtaining a Mahalanobis distance of the evaluation data based on at least some of the plurality of unit spaces; … determining the state of the plant based on the Mahalanobis distance and on a predetermined threshold value; … estimating a factor of an abnormality when the abnormality is determined in the step of determining the state of the plant, … includes … allocating, for each of the unit spaces used for determining the state, each of the sensors used for creating the unit space to a two-level orthogonal array with a use of the sensor as a first level and a non-use of the sensor as a second level to create an orthogonal array for each of the unit spaces, … calculating a larger-is-better SN ratio of each row of the orthogonal array for each of the orthogonal arrays for each of the unit spaces, …calculating an SN ratio gain by calculating a difference between a total value of the larger-is-better SN ratios at the first level and a total value of the larger-is-better SN ratios at the second level for each of the sensors in each of the orthogonal arrays for each of the unit spaces” are treated as belonging to the mathematical concepts grouping while the steps of “creating the plurality of unit spaces based on the unit space creation data detected by the sensor required for creating each of the unit”, “determining the state of the plant based on the Mahalanobis distance and on a predetermined threshold value; estimating a factor of an abnormality when the abnormality is determined in the step of determining the state of the plant, …estimating the factor of the abnormality includes … allocating, for each of the unit spaces used for determining the state, each of the sensors used for creating the unit space to a two-level orthogonal array with a use of the sensor as a first level and a non-use of the sensor as a second level to create an orthogonal array for each of the unit spaces and “specifying the sensor for which the SN ratio gain exceeding a predetermined threshold value for the SN ratio gain is calculated as a sensor related to the factor of the abnormality, based on the SN ratio gain … and on the threshold value for the SN ratio gain.” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping. These mental steps represent a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. In the context of this claim, these steps encompass a user performing observations, evaluations, and/or judgements related to the monitoring state.
The above steps, under the BRI, alternatively/additionally are also treated as a combination of mathematical and mental steps groupings (MPEP 2106.04.II: “construing the claims in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation”).
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 6 and 7.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the above claims that recites a judicial exception are integrated into a practical application.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: A monitoring method comprising: a step of acquiring unit space creation data, which is detected by a plurality of sensors provided in a plant;
In Claim 6: A monitoring device comprising: means for acquiring unit space creation data, which is detected by a plurality of sensors provided in a plant;
In Claim 7: A program causing a computer to execute a process comprising: a step of acquiring unit space creation data, which is detected by a plurality of sensors provided in a plant.
The additional elements in the preambles are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims such as acquiring unit space creation data, which is detected by a plurality of sensors provided in a plant (all independent claims) represent insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does 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.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-5 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising abstract idea steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without meaningful additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or additional elements that qualify for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
Examiner Note with Regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-7 are distinguished over prior art of record based on the reasons below.
The following references are considered to be the closest prior art to the claimed invention:
“INTRODUCTION TO TAGUCHI METHOD”, hereinafter ‘Taguchi’, https://www.ee.iitb.ac.in/~apte/CV_PRA_TAGUCHI_INTRO.htm, 2003, discloses Taguchi methodology for evaluating defects/abnormalities using orthogonal arrays and signal-to-noise ratios as objective functions for optimization, help in data analysis and prediction of optimum results.
AOYAMA K et al. (JP 5610695), hereinafter ‘Aoyama’, discloses plant monitoring method. In general, there are factors that increase the Mahalanobis distance, as well as factors that decrease the Mahalanobis distance, such as an element indicating the occurrence of an abnormality. The evaluation of the degree of contribution of each factor to the Mahalanobis distance is not limited to the above formula, and other indicators such as a gain of the desired SN ratio used in the Taguchi method may be used. The reduction factor candidate specifying unit 17 specifies a factor that contributes most to the decrease in Mahalanobis distance among all the factors as a reduction factor candidate.
Masayuki Takahama et al. (US 20100198555) , hereinafter ‘Takahama’, discloses a plant state monitoring method which monitors an operation state of a plant by using the Mahalanobis distance based on the plant state amount. estimates the items of abnormal state quantities from the difference between the larger-the-better SN ratios according to whether or not there are items by, for example, orthogonal table analysis. Whether or not there is an abnormality can be determined from the Mahalanobis distance D. However, it is difficult to determine a place where an abnormality occurs from the Mahalanobis distance D. It is easy to specify the place where an abnormality occurs or clear up the cause of the abnormality by estimating the items of abnormal state quantities. The plant state determining unit 12c displays the estimated abnormal state quantities on the display 14D of the control panel 14. The difference between the larger-the-better SN ratios according to whether there are items by the orthogonal table analysis is increased in the quantity of state of the abnormal item.
However, in regards to Claims 1, 6, and 7, the claims differ from the closest prior art, Mistrik, Zanatta, Kwon, and Woollam, either singularly or in combination, because the references fail to anticipate or render obvious calculating a larger-is-better SN ratio of each row of the orthogonal array for each of the orthogonal arrays for each of the unit spaces, a step of calculating an SN ratio gain by calculating a difference between a total value of the larger-is-better SN ratios at the first level and a total value of the larger-is-better SN ratios at the second level for each of the sensors in each of the orthogonal arrays for each of the unit spaces, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights