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 2-17 are objected to for reciting “Method according to claim” instead of “The claim according to claim”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – 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.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 18: Vehicle communication unit (7) is configured for receiving a first set of data;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Figure 1 (Communication unit 4c); Page 9 of the specification, Lines 25-35;
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 15-17 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 15 recites “in the case … the combined forecast is gradually, for each update or combination, improved to better resemble the reality as based on said measurements, and compensate for any incorrections in the original forecast”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the case, the reality, and the original forecast in the claim, nor in the claims from which it depends, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. Furthermore, it is unclear what the claim intends to reveal with this claim language. It is unclear how the combined forecast can better resemble the reality, what makes it resembling the reality and what does not make it resemble it. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are considered indefinite.
Claim 16 recites “in the case, the most similar forecast, the rest of its properties”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these terms in the claims, nor in the claims from which it depends, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. Furthermore, it is unclear what “inherit the rest of its properties” refers to in the context of the claim. What are the rest of the properties, and how can they be inherited. Therefore, the claim language is considered vague and ill-defined.
Claim 17 recites “the difference” and “the distance”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these terms in the claim, nor in the claim from which it depends, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. Accordingly, the claim is considered ill-defined.
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 19 is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 19 is directed to a computer readable medium comprising computer executable instructions, which when executed by a processor of a computer-based control unit (10), cause the processor to control the control unit. A computer-readable storage medium as recited herein, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification is interpreted as transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as “signals per se”; such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave). Accordingly, claim 19 is not patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.03 I.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e. process), claim 18 is directed to a computer-based system in a vehicle (i.e. machine). Therefore, claims 1 and 18 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1 and 18 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 1 recites:
A method for operating a computer-based system (10) in a vehicle (2), for determining an updated and optimized forecast relating to at least a weather or a road condition of a road section (3) in a network (1) of roads, said method comprising the following steps:
providing a first set of data (6) from a remote provider (4) of information related to at least a weather or a road condition in at least said road section (3), said first set of data (6) corresponding to said forecast;
transmitting said first set of data (6) to said vehicle (2); and
providing a second set of data (9) based on at least the operation of the vehicle (2) or present conditions in the surroundings of the vehicle (2); characterized in that said method furthermore comprises the steps of:
combining, in said computer-based system (10), said first set of data (6) with said second set of data (9) for obtaining said updated and optimized forecast;
and providing the updated and optimized forecast to a user.
Claim 18 discloses the same subject matter as claim 1 but for a computer-based system in a vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “providing and combining” steps encompass a user to make an observation, evaluation or judgement about the upcoming road or weather condition, which may be performed by the human mind or using paper and pencil. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of a computer-based system (10) in a vehicle (2), said first set of data (6) corresponding to said forecast; transmitting said first set of data (6) to said vehicle (2); and providing the updated and optimized forecast to a user, set of sensor devices, vehicle communication unit. The examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the computer-based system, the vehicle, the set of sensor devices, and the vehicle communication unit are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the content generating steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, these elements are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. In addition to that, the examiner submits transmitting said first set of data, and providing the updated and optimized forecast to a user are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the providing steps and the transmitting step are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle data for use in the generating step), and amounts to mere data gathering and data outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element recited above amount to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of transmitting the information and providing the update, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of receiving the image and acquiring the coordinate are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors from which the data is acquired/received are all conventional sensors. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claims. Therefore, claims 1-19 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by STENNETH (EP 3451312 A2).
Regarding claims 1, 18, and 19, STENNETH discloses method for operating a computer-based system (10) in a vehicle (2) ([0003]; [0015]; [0016]), for determining an updated and optimized forecast relating to at least a weather or a road condition of a road section (3) in a network (1) of roads ([0017]; [0022]; [0023]; [0026]: mapping platform can be a module in a vehicle and account for factors like road segments or areas of interest, and wherein the mapping platform fuses data from data sources including weather database to create a confidence level for a specific road element), said method comprising the following steps:
providing a first set of data (6) from a remote provider (4) of information related to at least a weather or a road condition in at least said road section (3) ([0020]: external data sources including weather database; [0033]: retrieving weather data records from weather service providers; [0072]: third-party weather services providing data), said first set of data (6) corresponding to said forecast ([0034]: weather data used as a proxy for roadway conditions; [0035]: weather parameters used to determine road condition levels);
transmitting said first set of data (6) to said vehicle (2) ([0015]:communication network transmitting data to vehicles; [0066]: Instructions and information transmitted to vehicles; [0068]: Alerts/messages delivered to vehicle occupants; Broadly interpreted to read on this limitation) and
providing a second set of data (9) based on at least the operation of the vehicle (2) or present conditions in the surroundings of the vehicle (2) ([0015]: sensors sensing vehicle telemetry and environment; [0028]: vehicle sensors detecting road events; [0028]: vehicle sensors detecting road events; [0030]: sensor data reports including time, detected conditions, and location);
characterized in that said method furthermore comprises the steps of: combining, in said computer-based system (10), said first set of data (6) with said second set of data (9) for obtaining said updated and optimized forecast ([0020]; [0023]; [0025]; [0033]: A data fusing module retrieves weather data records for the area of interest and a data fusing module extracts the location of the reported road event from the vehicle sensor data reports, and furthermore, it is described that an enhancement is achieved by fusing external data and vehicle sensor data (the enhancement of a road event, e.g. slipping, corresponding to an updated forecast); [0040]-[0042]; [0058]) and
providing the updated and optimized forecast to a user ([0059]; [0060]; [0068]: “the vehicle control interface 309 initiates a presentation of an alert message 607 at the vehicle 601 to informer an occupant/driver of the vehicle 101 that a slippery road event is upcoming and manual control is needed.”).
Regarding claim 2, STENNETH discloses said method further comprises: providing said first set of data (6) in the form of a set of parameters (P) indicating road condition information being associated with said road section (3) and being valid during a pre- determined period of time ([0031]; [0035]: “Slippery road event are aggregated from the area of interest based on a predetermined time epoch”).
Regarding claim 3, STENNETH discloses said method further comprises: providing said first set of data (6) in the form of at least one of the following parameters (P1-P7), which are provided as either values or probability distributions: - a temperature value of the road surface of said road section (3); - an amount of precipitation being collected on the road surface of said road section (3); - an air temperature associated with said road section (3); - a dew point associated with said road section (3); - a wind speed associated with said road section (3); - a road condition class associated with said road section (3); - a friction coefficient of the road surface of said road section (3); - a hazard level associated with said road section (3); and - a slipperiness indication associated with said road section (3) ([0036]).
Regarding claim 6, STENNETH discloses wherein said method further comprises: allowing access to said parameters via an online application programming interface (API) ([0093]: “the road event data records 709 may then be accessed and/or presented via user interfaces of end user devices”).
Regarding claim 7, STENNETH discloses said method further comprises: providing said second set of data (10) by onboard system data obtained in said vehicle (2); said onboard system data corresponding to a road condition presently existing in the vicinity of said vehicle (2), an environmental condition in the surroundings of the vehicle (2), or a current condition of operation of the vehicle (2), or any combination of said conditions (Fig. 2, [0020]).
Regarding claim 8, STENNETH discloses said method further comprises: providing said onboard system data in the form of measurement data from at least one sensor system (8) arranged in the vehicle (2) (Fig. 2, [0020]).
Regarding claim 9, STENNETH discloses said method further comprises: providing said measurement data from at least one of the following sensors or signals being associated with the sensor system (8) in the vehicle (2): - a laser-based sensor or signal; - a temperature sensor or signal; - a wheel-slip sensor or signal; - a traction control sensor or signal; - a rain sensor or signal; - a Lidar sensor or signal; - an ESP activation signal; and - an optical sensor or camera; said measurement data indicating information related to at least one of the following parameters related to said road section (3):- a road friction coefficient; - a hazard level; - a road surface temperature; - a road condition class, and - a slipperiness indication associated with said road section (3) ([0020]; [0070]).
Regarding claim 11, STENNETH discloses: feeding an output set of data from said fusion process to at least one of the following destinations: - an application in said vehicle (2) related to advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) or autonomous driving (AD); - an online application programming interface (API); and - a remote storage for said output set of data ([0093]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STENNETH.
Regarding claim 4, STENNETH discloses the claimed invention except for said first set of data (6) is in the form of at least one of said parameters (P) and is provided as a probability distribution of said at least one parameter (P).
Nevertheless, examiner takes official notice that providing data in the form of probability distribution is well known and common knowledge in the art. See MPEP 2144.03. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to provide the first data as probability distribution with the motivation of quantifying uncertainty, allowing for predictions about future data, and providing a concise summary of data characteristics.
Regarding claim 5, STENNETH discloses disclosed invention except for: associating at least one of said parameters (P1-P7) with a predicted uncertainty related to a deviation of a parameter value or a probability related to a parameter, at a given point in time.
Nevertheless, examiner takes official notice that associating at least one of said parameters (P1-P7) with a predicted uncertainty related to a deviation of a parameter value or a probability related to a parameter, at a given point in time is well known and common knowledge in the art. See MPEP 2144.03. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to associating at least one of said parameters (P1-P7) with a predicted uncertainty related to a deviation of a parameter value or a probability related to a parameter, at a given point in time with the motivation of quantifying uncertainty, allowing for predictions about future data, and providing a concise summary of data characteristics.
Claims 10, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STENNETH in view of Petty (US2014222321A1).
Regarding claim 10, STENNETH does not explicitly state combining said first set of data (6) with said second set of data (10) in a fusion process which involves a pre-processing stage or a fusion algorithm stage or a post-processing stage, or a combination of said stages.
On the other hand, Petty teaches combining said first set of data (6) with said second set of data (10) in a fusion process which involves a pre-processing stage or a fusion algorithm stage or a post-processing stage, or a combination of said stages ([0019]; [0020]; fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Stenneth reference and include features from the Petty reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so provides a more accurate data combination.
Regarding claim 12, Stenneth does not explicitly state providing a pre-processing stage which compensates for detected faults or ignorances in said computer-based system (10) or related to said second set of data (9).
On the other hand, Petty teaches providing a pre-processing stage which compensates for detected faults or ignorances in said computer-based system (10) or related to said second set of data (9) ([0019]; [0020]; fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Stenneth reference and include features from the Petty reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so provides a more accurate data combination.
Regarding claim 13, STENNETH does not explicitly state providing a fusion algorithm stage comprising a prediction and updating process implemented by means of Kalman filtering and smoothing, or any other suitable similar algorithm.
On the other hand, Petty teaches providing a fusion algorithm stage comprising a prediction and updating process implemented by means of Kalman filtering and smoothing, or any other suitable similar algorithm ([0019]; [0020]; fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Stenneth reference and include features from the Petty reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so provides a more accurate data combination.
Regarding claim 14, STENNETH discloses the claimed invention except for providing a post-processing stage utilizing a fused posterior distribution of output data.
Nevertheless, examiner takes official notice that providing a post-processing stage utilizing a fused posterior distribution of output data is well known and common knowledge in the art. See MPEP 2144.03. Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to providing a post-processing stage utilizing a fused posterior distribution of output data with the motivation of quantifying uncertainty, allowing for predictions about future data, and providing a concise summary of data characteristics.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
RISTOVSKI (US 20190235484 A1) discloses managing a single deep learning architecture for three modes including a failure prediction mode, a remaining useful life (RUL) mode, and a unified mode. Each mode is associated with an objective function and a transformation function. The single deep learning architecture is applied to learn parameters for an objective function through execution of a transformation function associated with a selected mode using historical data. The learned parameters of the single deep learning architecture can be applied with streaming data from with the equipment to generate a maintenance prediction for the equipment.
Johnson (US 20060106637 A1) discloses a business system decisioning framework for using and interacting with a business system transfer function is presented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHIRA BAAJOUR whose telephone number is (313)446-6602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 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, SCOTT BROWNE can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/SHAHIRA BAAJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3666