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 .
This action is responsive to application filed June 16, 2024.
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.
2. Claims 1-10 and 12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “an acquisition unit”, “supply unit” and “determination unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material or acts for performing the entire claimed function and clearly link the structure material or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states that claimed function of monitoring the functionality of sensors. The disclosure of the application does not describe a particular structure for the function and does not provide enough description for one of the ordinary skill in the art to understand which structure or structures perform the claimed function(s). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
If applicant wishes to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to include the phrase “means for” or “step for”. The phrase “means for” or “step for” must be modified by functional language, and the phrase or term must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; or
(b) Present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation is written as a function to be performed and the claim does not 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 § 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
3. Claims 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1 and 12 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of monitoring the functionality of sensors. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of the ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
4. Claim 11 is directed towards a computer readable medium, however, the specification does not limit computer readable medium to a tangible medium. The United States Patent and Trademark Office is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO, see In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir 1989). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particular when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). Thus, claim 11 is rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
5. Claims 1-12 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.
Claims 1 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “determining the state of the target as either normal or abnormal based on a plurality of classification results output from the plurality of classification models”.
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “apparatus”, “an acquisition unit”, “supply unit” and “determination unit” in claim 1; “computer readable medium”, “an acquisition unit”, “supply unit” and “determination unit” in claim 12, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user to mentally determine a normal or abnormal state of a sensor using readings of a sensor.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements- “apparatus”, “an acquisition unit”, “supply unit” and “determination unit” in claim 1; “computer readable medium”, “an acquisition unit”, “supply unit” and “determination unit” in claim 12 to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of determining a normal/abnormal state of a sensor) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claims 1, 11 and 12 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). In particular, the claims recite additional elements of “acquiring measurement data indicating a state of a target; supplying the measurement data acquired in the acquiring to a plurality of classification models”. The acquiring and supplying steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering (gathering sensor data), which is a form of insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e., generally gathering data that is to be used to determine a whether a sensor is functioning normally). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1 and 11-12 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
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.
6. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bae et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0293723 (referred to hereafter as Bae).
As to claims 1, 11 and 12, Bae teaches an apparatus, method and medium comprising:
an acquisition unit which acquires measurement data indicating a state of a target (see para. 9-10);
a supply unit which supplies the measurement data acquired by the acquisition unit to a plurality of classification models respectively learned by learning data, which includes measurement data in a period in which the state of the target is normal, for periods different from each other, the plurality of classification models classifying measurement data as either normal or abnormal in response to the measurement data being input (see para. 9-10); and
a determination unit which determines the state of the target as either normal or abnormal based on a plurality of classification results output from the plurality of classification models (see para. 9-10).
As to claim 2, Bae teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a learning processing unit which generates, in each period in which the state of the target is normal, a new classification model to be included in the plurality of classification models by learning processing using learning data including measurement data in the period acquired by the acquisition unit (see para. 55 and 58-59).
As to claim 3, Bae teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a selection unit which selects the plurality of classification models from two or more classification models respectively learned by learning data, which includes measurement data in a period in which the state of the target is normal, for periods different from each other, the two or more classification models classifying measurement data as either normal or abnormal in response to the measurement data being input (see para. 30-35).
As to claim 4, Bae teaches the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the selection unit selects, as at least one of the plurality of classification models, at least one classification model learned by learning data including measurement data in a most recent period (see para. 30-35).
As to claim 5, Bae teaches the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the selection unit selects, as at least one of the plurality of classification models, at least one classification model designated by an operator among the two or more classification models (see para. 30-35 and 58-59).
As to claim 6, Bae teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit determines the state of the target as either normal or abnormal by taking a logical product of the plurality of classification results (see para. 30-35 and 58-59).
As to claim 7, Bae teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit determines the state of the target as either normal or abnormal by making a majority decision of the plurality of classification results (see para. 75 and 90).
As to claim 8, Bae teaches the apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the determination unit determines the state of the target as either normal or abnormal by adding a larger weight to a classification result of a classification model learned by learning data including measurement data in a more recent period among the plurality of classification models, and making a weighted majority decision of the plurality of classification results (see para. 46, 75 and 90).
As to claim 9, Bae teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a decision unit which decides a severity of an abnormal state of the target, based on a number of at least one time of consecutive determination that the state of the target is abnormal (see para. 30-35 and 58-59).
As to claim 10, Bae teaches the apparatus according to claim 9, further comprising a setting unit which sets, as measurement data to be included in new learning data, any one of measurement data in a period in which the severity decided by the decision unit is lower than a reference severity among the measurement data in each period acquired by the acquisition unit and supplied from the supply unit to the plurality of classification models, or measurement data obtained by excluding each piece of measurement data, which has caused consecutive abnormality determination until the severity decided by the decision unit reaches the reference severity, and each piece of measurement data, which is subsequent to the each piece of measurement data, which has caused consecutive abnormality determination until the severity reaches the reference severity, and has caused consecutive abnormality determination, among the measurement data acquired by the acquisition unit and supplied from the supply unit to the plurality of classification models (see para. 30-35, 46, 75 and 58-59).
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSEIN A EL CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3999. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/HUSSEIN ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights