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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) were submitted on 07/12/2024 and 09/16/2024. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 18, line 2, “a computer program for for controlling a system” should read “a computer program for controlling a system”. (Emphasis added).
Appropriate corrections are 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.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
The 35 USC 101 analysis between each element of claims and its combination is presented in the table below
Claim number and elements
Judicial exception (Step 2A Prong one)
Practical application (Step 2A Prong two)/ Significantly more (Step 2B)
Claim 1
Step 1: Yes, statutory class
Step 2A Prong two: No / Step 2B: No
A computer-implemented method for controlling a system based on a trend that was detected in a data time series acquired by a sensor, the method comprising the following steps:
Step2A Prong one: Yes
acquiring and providing a data time series by a sensor;
applying at least one linear filter function with a resolution L to each point in time t of the data time series and obtaining a characteristic value for quantifying the temporal development of the data time series for each resolution L;
abstract idea
math process
“acquiring and providing a data time series …” is an insignificant extra-solution activity to collect routine data (i.e., a data time series).
“applying at least one linear filter function … obtaining a characteristic value …” is a math process.
The linear filter function, the resolution L and the characteristic value are indicative of a mathematical concept/degree/value/amount.
The sensor is a high level of generality.
detecting a trend in the data time series when one of the characteristic values of the data time series reaches a threshold value; and
abstract idea
math process
“detecting a trend ~” is a math or mental process performed using mathematical/arithmetic algorithm.
triggering a response of the system when the trend has been detected in the data time series.
“triggering a response …” is an insignificant extra-solution activity based on a math or mental process.
Claims 11-19 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 11-19 are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as addressed below and presented in the above table.
Step 2A: Prong One
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations recited in Claim 11, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations and/or the mind, as presented in the above table. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or the mathematical calculations. For example, “applying at least one linear filter function with a resolution L to each point in time t of the data time series and obtaining a characteristic value for quantifying the temporal development of the data time series for each resolution L” in the context of this claim may encompass mathematical calculations and/or inferring the characteristic value using mathematical formulas (i.e., the resulting linear function phiL(t) and modified formula to calculate the characteristic value K) based on the collected routine data (i.e., data time series). (See pages 7-8 in the specification).
For example, “detecting a trend in the data time series when one of the characteristic values of the data time series reaches a threshold value” in the context of this claim may encompass mathematical calculations and/or inferring the trend in the data time series by comparing the mathematical value (i.e., the threshold value) based on the previous mathematical calculations, where the trend is indicative of a mathematical result/concept/characteristic which is calculated or inferred through the previous mathematical calculations. (See pages 7-8 in the specification).
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is abstract ideal itself and not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the specification details use of a computer to perform mathematical calculations of “applying at least one linear filter function with a resolution L to each point in time t of the data time series and obtaining a characteristic value for quantifying the temporal development of the data time series for each resolution L” and “detecting a trend in the data time series when one of the characteristic values of the data time series reaches a threshold value”. The sensor and the system is recited at a high-level of generality to merely gather routine data (i.e., data time series) and to perform a generic computer function related to mathematical calculation/data processing itself of a generic computer component. The limitation of “acquiring and providing a data time series by a sensor” is insignificant extra-solution activity necessary to merely gather data (i.e., data time series) to be used for performing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation of “triggering a response of the system when the trend has been detected in the data time series” is insignificant extra-solution activity to perform a generic computer function of a generic computer component based on the previous mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.05(g). There is no showing of integration into a practical application such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, or use of a particular machine.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of “acquiring and providing a data time series by a sensor” is insignificant extra-solution activity necessary to merely gather data (i.e., data time series) to be used for performing the abstract idea. The limitation of “triggering a response of the system when the trend has been detected in the data time series” is insignificant extra-solution activity to perform a generic computer function of a generic computer component based on the previous mathematical calculations. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the data processor of the computer to perform “applying at least one linear filter function with a resolution L to each point in time t of the data time series and obtaining a characteristic value for quantifying the temporal development of the data time series for each resolution L” and “detecting a trend in the data time series when one of the characteristic values of the data time series reaches a threshold value” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept cannot provide statutory eligibility. Claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 12-17, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claim 11. The limitation of “setting the resolution L; creating the linear function phiL(t) with L values; ascertaining a portion of the data time series for a range t-L to t with L values; multiplying the linear function phiL(t) by the portion of the data time series; and summing all products from the linear function phiL(t) with the data time series for all L values” in the context of claim 13 may encompass mathematical calculations and/or inferring the linear filter function for the resolution L based on the collected routine data. The limitations of “the system is a test bench for a motor vehicle” in claim 14, “the system is a moving part in a machine, the sensor is a sensor for detecting vibration of the part” in claim 16, and “the system is a fuel cell, the sensor is a sensor for detecting the pressure in the fuel cell, or a sensor for detecting the current supplied by the fuel cell, or a temperature sensor on the fuel cell, or a virtual sensor for detecting an operating state of the fuel cell” in claim 17 are merely indicative of a field of use of the claimed invention, and/or high level of generalities merely recited to collect routine data detected by sensors. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 12-17, the judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 18, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium type claim having similar limitations as of claim 11 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 11 above.
Regarding Claim 19, it is a system type claim having similar limitations as of claim 11 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 11 above.
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.
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HASEL MARIO et al. (DE 102014114446 A1, hereinafter referred to as “HASEL”, a cited in IDS dated 09/16/2024) in view of MANRIQUE GARAY et al. (DE 102020200051 A1, hereinafter referred to as “MANRIQUE”, a cited in IDS dated 09/16/2024) and Cella et al. (US 20190121348 A1, hereinafter referred to as “US 20190121348 A1”).
Regarding Claim 11, HASEL teaches a computer-implemented method (Fig. 1) for controlling a system based on a trend that was detected in a data time series acquired by a sensor, the method comprising the following steps:
acquiring and providing a data time series by a sensor (At least pages 3 and 4 teach a sensor to acquire data measured at time series, “a controller for a machine configured to detect predefined events in measurement data of the machine, wherein the controller is further configured to receive measurement data acquired by at least one sensor of the machine by means of a state machine having the values to be provided in advance respective states and / or state transitions of respective events” in page 3 of English machine translation; “records a data history acquired by the respective sensor system with the defined states 1 and 7 or state transitions 3 and 5 adjusts. For this purpose, the state machine compares respective measurement data at the times t1, t2, t3 and t4 with in the corresponding states 1 and 7 or state transitions 3 and 5 given values for specific parameters” in page 4 of English machine translation);
applying at least one linear filter function with a resolution L to each point in time t of the data time series and obtaining a characteristic value for quantifying the temporal development of the data time series for each resolution L (At least pages 3 and 4 teach a filter function applied to each time point to obtain state transitions (i.e., characteristic values) and obtain a pattern of data characteristic data based on different values of different sensors acquired at different times , “based on an analysis of a data history acquired by a respective sensor system of a respective machine. This means that a pattern of data corresponding to a predefined event can be constructed from different values of different sensors acquired at different times. In an embodiment of the method according to the invention, it is provided that a state transition is characterized by a characteristic data course of data, measured by at least one sensor, in a defined period of time. … respective states and / or state transitions are selected from the states and / or state transitions to be provided in advance and only the selected states and / or state transitions are detected by the state machine by means of a filter function” in page 3 of English machine translation; “the state machine compares respective measurement data at the times t1, t2, t3 and t4 with in the corresponding states 1 and 7 or state transitions 3 and 5 given values for specific parameters” in page 4 of English machine translation);
HASEL fails to explicitly disclose, but MANRIQUE teaches detecting a trend (i.e., degradation or wear) in the data time series when one of the characteristic values of the data time series reaches a threshold value (At least page 10 teach detecting degradation or wear when the state values exceeds the threshold value, “The BU can be determined on the basis of filtered first state values (which have been filtered with a Kalman filter, as described herein), wherein advantageously a probability that the BU assumes a value above the HT is low as a result of the filtering as long as the BU is below of the HT lies. In addition, every time the threshold value (HT) is exceeded, a random (or stochastic) degradation or wear takes place. If the filtered first status value exceeds the HT, in some exemplary embodiments, no more remaining usage cycles can be determined, so that the HT can advantageously be recognized before damage occurs to a device” in page 10 of English machine translation).
HASEL and MANRIQUE are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of detecting predefined events in measurement data from a machine, and determining remaining usage cycles, a remaining usage cycle determining circuit, and a remaining usage cycle determining device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HASEL to incorporate the teachings of and MANRIQUE by providing operations for detecting a trend (degradation or wear) when the state values exceeds the threshold value as taught by MANRIQUE at least in page 10 of English machine translation.
HASEL in view of MANRIQUE fails to explicitly disclose, but Cella teaches triggering a response of the system when the trend has been detected in the data time series (“the multiplexer includes generating an alarm in response to detection of the predefined state of the trigger signal”).
Cella is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of a data monitoring system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HASEL in view of MANRIQUE to incorporate the teachings of Cella and by providing operations for generating an alarm in response to detection of the predefined state of the trigger signal as taught by Cella at least at paragraph 0284.
Regarding Claim 12, HASEL fails to explicitly disclose, but MANRIQUE teaches wherein the trend is an upward trend or a downward trend (Para 0051, “the charging port 41 includes a connector (not illustrated) into which a charging cable (not illustrated) is fitted, and a connection detection sensor 41a. An external power supply (such as a commercial power supply) is connected to the charging port 41 via the charging cable”).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, an upward trend or a downward trend is indicative of a state or event, such as degradation or wear, which is detected and determined based on the sensor data. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HASEL to incorporate the teachings of and MANRIQUE by providing a trend such as degradation or wear, as taught by MANRIQUE at least in page 10 of English machine translation.
Regarding Claim 14, HASEL in view of MANRIQUE fails to explicitly disclose, but Cella teaches wherein the system is a test bench for a motor vehicle and a response of the system includes switching off the test bench and/or the motor vehicle (Para 0014-0015, “a data acquisition circuit structured to interpret a plurality of detection values, each of the plurality of detection values corresponding to at least one of a plurality of input sensors communicatively coupled to the data acquisition circuit, a data storage circuit structured to store specifications and anticipated state information for a plurality of vehicle types, an analysis circuit structured to analyze the plurality of detection values relative to specifications and anticipated state information to determine a vehicle performance parameter, and a response circuit structured to initiate an action in response to the vehicle performance parameter”; Para 0020, “the action in response to the vehicle performance parameter includes at least one of: enabling or disabling a processing of detection values by switching to sensors”; Para 0267, “controlling one or more data collection system resources, such as sensors 7202 and the like. Other data collection resources that a CPLD may control may include crosspoint switches”; para 0385, “An example testing system includes the testing system in communication with a number of analog and digital input sensors, a monitoring device including a data acquisition circuit that interprets a number of detection values, each of the number of detection values corresponding to at least one of the input sensors”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HASEL in view of MANRIQUE to incorporate the teachings of Cella and by providing a testing for vehicle type and performance and control operations for switching off the test, as taught by Cella at least at paragraphs 0014-0015, 0020, 0267 and 0385.
Regarding Claim 15, HASEL fails to explicitly disclose, but MANRIQUE Cella teaches wherein the sensor is a sensor for measuring temperature and wherein the data time series determines a temperature of a subsystem of the motor vehicle (“The sensor can accordingly be set up to generate sensor data which are indicative of the state value. Therefore, the sensor can include, for example, a pressure sensor, a distance sensor, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a color sensor, and the like. In addition, the sensor data can also be indicative of several (for example successive) status values, which flow into the determination of the future usage cycle individually, in groups or as a (weighted) average value” in page 4 of English machine translation).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HASEL to incorporate the teachings of and MANRIQUE by providing a sensor to measure a temperature to generate sensor data of the system, as taught by MANRIQUE at least in page 4 of English machine translation.
Regarding Claim 16, HASEL fails to explicitly disclose, but MANRIQUE teaches wherein: the system is a moving part (vehicle components) in a machine,
the sensor is a sensor for detecting vibration of the part, and the response of the system includes switching off the machine or labeling the machine as requiring maintenance (“maintenance can be planned on the basis of parts that have already been produced, which reduces unwanted uncertainty due to a long break (e.g. due to man-made schedules” in page 2 of English machine translation; “the production device or that part of the production device can be switched off” in page 5 of English machine translation; “all components affected by wear, such as vehicle components that are monitored with appropriate sensors (for example vibration sensors). For example, a wheel bearing damage, a transmission damage, and the like can be predicted” in page 13 of English machine translation).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HASEL to incorporate the teachings of and MANRIQUE by providing a vibration sensor to detect vibration to control if the machine is switched off and plan/schedule a maintenance, as taught by MANRIQUE at least in pages 2, 5 and 13 of English machine translation.
Regarding Claim 17, HASEL in view of MANRIQUE fails to explicitly disclose, but Cella teaches wherein:
the system is a fuel cell (Para 0648, “use of fuel … fuel storage”), the sensor is a sensor for detecting the pressure in the fuel cell, or a sensor for detecting the current supplied by the fuel cell, or a temperature sensor on the fuel cell, or a virtual sensor for detecting an operating state of the fuel cell, and the response of the system comprises reducing the power of the fuel cell or shutting off the fuel cell (Para 0278, “a sensor may be configured to detect a pressure difference in the hydraulic fluid that exceeds a certain threshold … As a result of detecting the high-pressure condition, a data collection activity may be activated so that data can be collected using the same line that was recently used by the trigger signal”; Para 0189 and 0260, “the current standard methodology for analyzing torsional vibration involves the use of specialized instrumentation. Methods and systems disclosed herein allow analysis of torsional vibration without such specialized instrumentation. This may consist of shutting the machine down”, “In embodiments, one or more programmable logic components in an industrial environment may be programmed to control data routing resources and sensors for outcomes, such as reducing power consumption (e.g., powering on/off resources as needed)”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HASEL in view of MANRIQUE to incorporate the teachings of Cella and by providing a sensor to detect a pressure and control operations for reducing power consumption, as taught by Cella at least at paragraphs 0189, 0260 and 0278.
Regarding Claim 18, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium type claim and has similar limitations as of a part of claim 11 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 11 above.
Regarding Claim 19, it is a system type claim having similar limitations as of a part of claim 11 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 11 above.
Examiner Note
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in this Office action. No prior art rejection has been made because the prior art of record take alone or in combination fails to teach the following features:
Regarding claim 13, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of Claim 13,
"wherein the application of the linear filter function for the resolution L includes the following steps:
setting the resolution L;
creating the linear function phiL(t) with L values;
ascertaining a portion of the data time series for a range t-L to t with L values;
multiplying the linear function phiL(t) by the portion of the data time series; and
summing all products from the linear function phiL(t) with the data time series
for all L values".
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Garvey, III et al. (US 20140324367 A1) teaches useful and meaningful machine characteristic information which may be derived through analysis of oversampled digital data collected using dynamic signal analyzers, such as vibration analyzers, where such data have generally been discarded in prior art systems, in addition to peak values and decimated values, other oversampled values are used that are associated with characteristics of the machine being monitored and the sensors and circuits that gather the data, and this provides more useful information than has previously been derived from oversampled data within a sampling interval.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BYUNG RO LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3707. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571) 270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-2555.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/BYUNG RO LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights