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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “a fault basket including comprising”; either “including” or “comprising” should be removed since using both is redundant.
Claim 8 recites “the method of claims 5” which should be replaced with “the method of claim 5”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 has multiple issues:
Claim 1 recites: “an identification of a device showing the fault and a time period during which the fault occurs.” Since the only previous reference is to “one or more faults,” it is unclear which fault is being referred to. Does the device referred to show all of the one or more faults, only one of them, or can it show any non-empty subset of the one or more faults?
For examination purposes it will be assumed that the above should be replaced with: “an identification of a device showing at least one of the one or more faults and a time period during which the at least one of the one or more faults occurs.”
Claim 1 recites: “each fault basket for a fault comprises that fault and at least other faults in the system active at the time the fault occurs.” It is unclear which fault the italicized references refer to. Do they refer to the fault for which a given fault basket is established? The examiner believes such is the case and will use such interpretation for examination purposes.
Claim 3 recites “each fault”; it is unclear which set of faults this refers to. For examination purposes it will be assumed that this should be replaced with: “each of the one or more faults”.
Claim 6 has multiple issues:
Claim 6 recites “a device or device family”; it is unclear whether this refers to the same device as recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that the above should refer to the device recited in claim 1.
Claim 6 refers to “…in which the fault occurs”, however it is unclear which fault is being referred to. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that this should be replaced with “…in which the one or more faults occur.”
Claim 7 recites “a device or device family” and “the fault”, both of which are confusing for the same reasons as given in the rejection of claim 6 and which will be interpreted the same way for examination purposes.
Claim 12 recites “a device,” “a method of addressing faults,” and “a system”, all of which are confusing because it is unclear whether they intend to refer to the device, method, and system recited in claim 1. It seems that claim 12 is written as though it is an independent claim; is this Applicant’s intent? For examination purposes, it will be assumed that the device, method, and system in claim 12 refer to claim 1.
Claims 2, 4-5, 8-11, and 13-16 depend from claim 1, therefore they inherit the same issues and are rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of the 101 analysis, all claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 is rejected in response to the following analysis:
At Step 2A, Prong One, the judicial exceptions are bolded in the copy of claim 1 below:
A computer-implemented method of addressing faults in a system comprising at least one controller, wherein the method comprises:
receiving fault information from the at least one controller for one or more faults, wherein the fault information comprises at least an identification of a device showing at least one of the one or more faults and a time period during which the at least one of the one or more faults occurs;
establishing a plurality of fault baskets, wherein each fault basket for a fault comprises that fault and at least other faults in the system active at the time the fault occurs;
mining the plurality of fault baskets to establish one or more fault patterns and associated fault rules;
determining whether each fault rule meets a significance threshold; and
establishing a corrective or preventative action for fault rules that meet the significance threshold.
Establishing fault baskets is a grouping of data which is a mental or mathematical process depending on complexity. Mining the fault baskets to establish patterns and rules and determining whether a rule meets a significance threshold encompasses mental or mathematical processes depending on complexity. Finally, at the level of detail given, establishing a corrective or preventative action encompasses a mental process (while a corrective or preventative action could require a physical action of some kind, and thus qualify as an additional element, the requirement is not present in the claim language).
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements include receiving fault information from a controller, the fault coming from a device. Receiving information can be considered necessary data gathering. Moreover, reciting a controller and a device do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application at the level of detail given. A device is a generic term for an object that is made for a purpose, and controllers are found in most electronic devices. When considered as a whole, claim 1 uses an electronic device to obtain fault information, then performs mental or mathematical operations on that fault information. The language is too broad to be considered practical. For example, while the claim language may describe obtaining fault codes from vehicles in a fleet and searching for patterns, as Applicant’s specification suggests, the limitations could just as well describe obtaining test scores from students and analyzing the scores to determine gaps in knowledge and planning to address the deficiencies.
At Step 2B, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the reasons given above.
Claims 2-9 recite further judicial exceptions and do not address the issues outlined in the rejection of claim 1, therefore these claims are also rejected.
Claim 10 recites a diagnostics system which receives fault information from multiple controllers from different systems comprising devices of the same type. These additional elements do not address the issues outlined in the rejection of claim 1, therefore claim 10 is also rejected.
Claim 11 recites that the diagnostics system is remote from the controllers and that the controllers communicate over networks. Again, this does little to address the issues outlined in the rejection of claim 1, therefore claim 11 is also rejected.
Claim 12 recites largely the same limitations as claim 1. Claim 12 also recites that there may be a product comprising the device, and that a maintenance schedule for the device or the product containing the device is determined. Because these limitations are still quite broad, they do not address the issues outlined in the rejection of claim 1, therefore claim 12 is also rejected.
Claims 13-14 recite that the product is a vehicle and the device is a transmission or an engine. This does limit the field of use to that of vehicles. However, issues still exist. It is not clear what the “fault information” is, for example; while the specification suggests that these are fault codes, the claim language does not require this interpretation. Again, the method of mining the baskets to establish rules does not need to be interpreted as association rule learning, but could instead refer to generally analyzing sets of fault data to establish patterns and rules. The threshold for determining whether action needs to be taken is not further limited. Finally, the corrective or preventative action taken is left general. Considering all this, it seems that claims 13 and 14 simply link the judicial exceptions to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claims 13-14 are therefore also rejected.
Claims 15-16 recite a computer and a diagnostics system of the kind recited in claims 10-11, therefore these claims are rejected for largely the same reasons.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava (US 20230169367 A1) in view of Agrawal (“Fast algorithms for mining association rules”).
Regarding claim 1, Srivastava discloses a computer-implemented method of addressing faults in a system (Abstract: “A method for predicting a target event associated with a machine”; ¶6: the target event may be a fault code; ¶8: the method is implemented by processors executing computer-executable instructions; Fig. 1 the machines may be excavators) comprising at least one controller (¶37: controllers mediate signal communications), wherein the method comprises:
receiving fault information from the at least one controller for one or more faults (¶6: a machine fault code may be received as the target event), wherein the fault information comprises at least an identification of a device showing at least one of the one or more faults and a time period during which the at least one of the one or more faults occurs (Fig. 5 depicts event data, the machine creating it, and the time stamp of the fault codes; from ¶24 the device may be an engine of the excavator);
establishing a plurality of fault baskets (Abstract: event sequences are generated), wherein each fault basket for a fault comprises that fault (Abstract: for each occurrence of a target event, an event sequence is generated) and at least other faults in the system (Abstract: the event sequence comprises events preceding the target events); and
mining the plurality of fault baskets to establish one or more fault patterns and associated fault rules (¶25: a rule mining module 122 accepts a sequences database of the event sequences as input, then determines patterns and associated rules: “The results from [an Apriori] algorithm can be rules showing the most frequently occurring antecedents, support, and confidence.”).
Srivastava does not explicitly recite determining whether each fault rule meets a significance threshold; and establishing a corrective or preventative action for fault rules that meet the significance threshold. However, Srivastava does teach determining a likelihood that a machine will experience a target event such as predicting a necessary engine overhaul (see ¶51, where previously determined rules are applied to determine the likelihood that a machine will experience a target event, and communicating that likelihood to a user; see also ¶24 discussing predicting an engine overhaul event for one of the machines; See also Fig. 4, column 406). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Srivastava to determine whether each fault rule meets a significance threshold and establish a corrective or preventative action for fault rules that meet the significance threshold. Doing so would enable one to use the method to determine when maintenance, such as an engine overhaul of an excavator, is necessary.
In light of the above, Srivastava does not explicitly disclose that each fault basket for a fault comprises other faults in the system active at the time the fault occurs.
Agrawal discloses a method of mining association rules (see Abstract). Agrawal teaches that association rule mining is used in market analysis, where items purchased together in a single transaction are grouped together as a set, and one seeks to find correlations between subsets of the items purchased together (see first two paragraphs under “Introduction”; an example is given where 98% of customers that purchase tires and auto accessories also get automotive services done in the same transaction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Agrawal with the invention of Srivastava by causing each fault basket for a fault to also comprise other faults in the system active at the time the fault occurs. Doing so would enable one to account for relationships between concurrent faults as well when attempting to predict a target event.
Regarding claim 2, Srivastava in view of Agrawal teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches that a fault basket of the plurality of fault baskets also contains faults which were active before the start of the fault for which the fault basket is established (Srivastava, Abstract: the event sequence comprises events preceding the target event). While Srivastava does not explicitly disclose that any of the previous faults are inactive faults which became inactive before the start of the fault for which the fault basket is established, it would be reasonable to suppose that, when practicing Srivastava, such a requirement may be satisfied (that is, it would be unreasonable to suppose that Srivastava would restrict all “events preceding the target event” to those which are still active at the start of the target event absent any suggestion from Srivastava that such is the case).
Regarding claim 3, Srivastava in view of Agrawal teaches the limitations of claim 2 but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 3. However, it would have been obvious to establish a proximity threshold, where inactive faults are included in the fault basket if they meet the proximity threshold. Doing so would ensure that faults which occurred too long ago to be reliably relevant to the “target event” are not included in the event sequences.
Regarding claim 4, Srivastava in view of Agrawal teaches the limitations of claim 2 and further teaches that each of the one or more faults has associated with it a fault basket comprising both other active faults and inactive faults (see rejection of claim 1). While Srivastava in view of Agrawal does not explicitly recite that each of the one or more faults has associated with it a fault basket comprising only other active faults, it would have been obvious to do so to isolate association analysis to faults occurring simultaneously (also note Agrawal’s example, discussed in the rejection of claim 1; Agrawal does not consider temporal sequences, only looking for associations between items bought simultaneously). Doing so would enable one to test whether simultaneously occurring faults themselves are valuable for predicting and addressing imminent issues.
Regarding claim 9, Srivastava in view of Agrawal teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 9. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Srivastava in view of Agrawal to determine whether each fault rule meets the significance threshold by determining whether that fault rule is established or emerging. The claim language above is encompassed by determining whether a rule has high or low support, and basing whether a fault rule meets the significance threshold on the degree of support it has. Doing so would enable one to categorize rule importance.
Regarding claim 10, Srivastava in view of Agrawal teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches that method steps are carried out by a diagnostics system (Fig. 1, target event prediction system 100), and wherein the diagnostics system receives fault information from a plurality of controllers in a plurality of different systems (Fig. 1 and ¶23: the data is received from multiple excavators 20(1) and 20(2); the excavators would comprise controllers) comprising devices of the same type therein (the excavators would have engines of the same type).
Regarding claim 11, Srivastava in view of Agrawal teaches the limitations of claim 10 and further teaches that the diagnostics system is remote from the plurality of controllers (see Fig. 1 and rejection of claim 10) and receives fault information from the plurality of controllers over one or more networks (¶23: telematics data from the excavators can be sent via satellite, cell radio, wifi, Bluetooth, etc. The telematics data includes event data (which may be fault code data; see rejection of claim 1)).
Regarding claim 12, Srivastava in view of Agrawal teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches a method of determining maintenance actions for the device (engine) or for a product (excavator) comprising the device, wherein, the method comprises the method of addressing faults in the system as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1). Additionally, following the reasoning of claim 1, it would have been obvious to determine a maintenance schedule for the device or the product containing the device to carry out the corrective or preventative actions for the fault rules that meet the significance threshold established thereby (see rejection of claim 1, discussing predicting an engine overhaul and arguing that it would be useful to use the predictive method to determine when maintenance is necessary).
Regarding claim 13, Srivastava in view of Agrawal teaches the limitations of claim 12 and further teaches that the product is a vehicle (see rejection of claim 12).
Regarding claim 14, Srivastava in view of Agrawal teaches the limitations of claim 13 and further teaches that the device is a transmission or an engine (see rejection of claim 12).
Regarding claim 15, Srivastava in view of Agrawal teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches a diagnostics system which is a computer system comprising a processor and a memory and is programmed to perform the method of claim 1 (See at least ¶7-8 of Srivastava, and rejection of claim 10).
Regarding claim 16, the limitations of claim 16 are rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of claims 10 and 11.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 5-8 are distinguishable over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 5, Srivastava in view of Agrawal teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Agrawal teaches that mining comprises a plurality of mining stages (Pg. 488, just under Section 1.1: after defining itemsets, rules are generated in a set of stages for each large itemset
l
), wherein for each mining stage, fault rules are established, and one or more itemsets are associated with each fault rule (for each large itemset
l
, rules of the type
a
⇒
(
l
-
a
)
, where
a
⊂
l
are found, wherein
l
represents a set of items that have transaction support above a minimum support), and for subsequent mining stages, only itemsets not already associated with a fault rule are considered (itemsets
l
are iterated over for finding rules).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Agrawal with the invention of Srivastava by causing the step of mining the plurality of fault baskets to comprise a plurality of fault basket mining stages, wherein for each mining stage, fault rules are established, and one or more fault baskets are associated with each fault rule. Doing so would implement a known method of data association mining.
However, the examiner finds that it would not have been obvious to, for subsequent mining stages, consider only fault baskets not already associated with a fault rule. The examiner understands the event sequences of Srivastava to map to the transactions discussed in Agrawal, and although Agrawal iterates over
l
, this does not mean that the transactions themselves may not overlap with different itemsets
l
. Therefore, claim 5 is distinguishable over the prior art of record.
Regarding claims 6-8, these claims depend from claim 5 and are therefore also distinguishable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kumar (US 20070094067 A1) discloses a method of association mining (see Abstract and ¶3). Kumar teaches that data can be filtered by selecting only transaction data which are desired to be analyzed (¶47).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-0266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/E.W.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights