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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-5 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: it contains and extra space and comma in line 8. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-5, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the representative functions of the independent claims—including extracting feature value data regarding a state of equipment that is an object to be monitored, from operation data indicating the state of the equipment; converting the feature value data extracted from the operation data into determination data in a feature value space that does not depend on an operation pattern in an operation environment; determining the state of the equipment on a basis of a comparison between the determination data and a feature value distribution indicating a determination range in the feature value space; and outputting a result of determining the state of the equipment.
These limitations taken together qualify as a certain method of organizing human activities because they recite collecting, analyzing, and outputting information for monitoring equipment in an operational environment (i.e., in the terminology of the 2019 Revised Guidance, fundamental economic practices (including mitigating risk)). Additionally, it recites processes that can be performed mentally (e.g., observing equipment operational data, comparing it, and arriving at a judgment on a state of the equipment). Finally, it also recites mathematical calculations and relationships (converting the feature value data extracted from the operation data into determination data in a feature value space that does not depend on an operation pattern in an operation environment; determining the state of the equipment on a basis of a comparison between the determination data and a feature value distribution indicating a determination range in the feature value space—see Figs. 7-8). See also Abbaszadeh, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0056722 (Reference A of the attached PTO-892) (¶ 0069—"the term 'feature' may refer to, for example, mathematical representations of data").
It shares similarities with other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts (see Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)—process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content (real-time power grid metrics), then displaying the results, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content (equipment operation state), then displaying the results; University of Florida Research Foundation v. GE Company, 916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019)—collecting, analyzing, manipulating (including converting into a different format), and displaying data, which also characterizes the invention).
These cases describe significantly similar aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception (device, processing circuitry, output interface, non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein a program including instructions, processor, computer—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, etc. to automate the abstract idea), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements (device, processing circuitry, output interface, non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein a program including instructions, processor, computer—see published Specification ¶¶ 0042-43, 47 describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these basic computer functions).
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the same abstract idea identified above without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely narrow the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims (i.e., a generic computer).
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. They do not add any new additional elements to be analyzed here. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. While these and those on the supplied IDS are the closest references of record, none of them teach the limitations of the independent claims (converting the feature value data extracted from the operation data into determination data in a feature value space that does not depend on an operation pattern in an operation environment; determining the state of the equipment on a basis of a comparison between the determination data and a feature value distribution indicating a determination range in the feature value space) in any reasonable combination. As such, no prior art rejection has been issued.
Texuka, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0159196 (Reference B of the attached PTO-892) relates to equipment state monitoring.
Herzog, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0324430 (Reference C of the attached PTO-892) relates to equipment state monitoring.
Rao, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0188584 (Reference D of the attached PTO-892) relates to equipment state monitoring.
Bellala, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0217378 (Reference E of the attached PTO-892) relates to equipment state monitoring.
Yuan, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0048007 (Reference F of the attached PTO-892) relates to equipment state monitoring.
Wakabayashi, et al., Intl. Pat. Pub. No. WO 2020/071039 (Reference N of the attached PTO-892) (translation in Wakabayashi, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0216609 (Reference G of the attached PTO-892)) relates to equipment state monitoring.
Wu, et al., For. Pat. Pub. No. CN 111176872 (Reference O of the attached PTO-892) relates to equipment state monitoring.
Huang, et al., For. Pat. Pub. No. CN 109541461 (Reference P of the attached PTO-892) relates to equipment state monitoring.
Jang, et al., Feature space transformation for fault diagnosis of rotating machinery under different working conditions, Sensors, Vol. 21, No. 4, 2021, 1417 (Reference U of the attached PTO-892) relates to equipment state monitoring.
Niu, et al., Development of an optimized condition-based maintenance system by data fusion and reliability-centered maintenance, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 95, No. 7. 2010, 786-796 (Reference V of the attached PTO-892) relates to equipment state monitoring.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights