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 Application
2. Claim 1-8, and 10 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed on 8/15/24 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 1, 5, and 10 recites the limitation "the same position", “the previous cycle”, “the previous peak value”, “the basis of the..”;
Claim 2, and 6 recites “the basis of the…”;
Claim 3, and 7 recites “the periodicity”;
Claim 4, and 8 recites “the overall prediction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2-4, 6-8 are also rejected under 112(b) rejection due to their direct/indirect dependency over the claim 1 and 5 respectively.
Claim Interpretation
6. 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.
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: a measurement value receiving unit to receive a measurement value, a first estimation value determining unit to predict a linear estimation value, a second estimation value determining unit to analyse a position of a current measurement value, estimation value computing unit to compute a process variable estimation value; and an overall prediction unit to compare in claim 5;
the estimation value computing unit further configured to: compute in claim 6;
a user setting unit to receive; the overall prediction unit is further configured to estimate in claim 8.
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.
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
7. 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.
Claim 5 is 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 limitation “a measurement value receiving unit to receive a measurement value, a first estimation value determining unit to predict a linear estimation value, a second estimation value determining unit to analyse a position of a current measurement value, estimation value computing unit to compute a process variable estimation value; and an overall prediction unit to compare in claim 5;
the estimation value computing unit further configured to: compute in claim 6;
a user setting unit to receive; the overall prediction unit is further configured to estimate in claim 8” invokes 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 to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The claimed different units of claim 5-6, and 8 are part of an early alert apparatus, however the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed different function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
8. Claims 1-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more as fully discussed below.
9. Regarding Independent claim 1, 5, and 10:
Step 1: Yes
Claim 1 is drawn to an early alert method, Claim 5 is drawn to an early alert apparatus, and claim 10 is drawn to a computing device, therefore claim 1, 5 and 10 falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes
Independent claim 1, 5 and 10 are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, 5 and 10 recites claim limitation of “predicting a linear estimation value, comparing the linear estimation value with a preset warning threshold, and if the linear estimation value is greater than the preset warning threshold, setting the linear estimation value as a first estimation value; analysing a position of a current measurement value in a measurement value cycle of the process variable, comparing the current measurement value with a value of the process variable at the same position in the previous cycle to determine a deviation value, then adding the deviation value to the previous peak value or trough value to serve as a maximum estimation value, comparing the maximum estimation value with the preset warning threshold, and if the maximum estimation value is greater than the preset warning threshold, setting the maximum estimation value as a second estimation value; computing a process variable estimation value on the basis of the first estimation value and the second estimation value; and comparing the process variable estimation value with the preset warning threshold” that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, enumerates a mental concept. A human can mentally perform a simple claimed function of predicting, comparing, setting, adding and computing function using pen and paper.
Thus, these claimed functions are the judicial exceptions that are no more than a mental abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 1, 5 and 10 recites claim limitation of “using a linear prediction model generated by performing linear fitting on a predetermined number of measurement values recently measured by the process instrument”, wherein performing linear fitting (commonly called linear regression) is a fundamental concept in mathematics and statistics. It involves finding the mathematical equation of a straight line that best represents a set of data points. Hence the claimed limitation of model generation by performing linear fitting that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, enumerates a mathematical concept.
Thus, these claimed functions are the judicial exceptions that are no more than an abstract idea processed by a mathematical algorithm (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Hence claim 1, 5, and 10 are the judicial exceptions that are no more than an abstract idea processed by mental concept and a mathematical calculation.
Step 2A, Prong 2: No
Claim 1, 5, and 10 recites additional limitation of “receiving a measurement value of a process variable measured by a process instrument”, and “issuing an early alert signal if the process variable estimation value is greater than the preset warning threshold.” The functions of receiving a measurement value and issuing signal are forms of insignificant input or output solution activities (i.e., extra solution), such that data receiving and outputting are necessary for the use of the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 5 further recite additional limitation of “a measurement value receiving unit, a first estimation value determining unit, a second estimation value determining unit, estimation value computing unit; and an overall prediction unit to compare; and
Claim 10 further recite additional limitation of “A computing device comprising: at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor” are considered as do not integrate into practical application and are recited at a high level of generality such that thy amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: No
The additional functions that are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because the court decisions have determined that this additional element to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner for data storing, collecting, receiving, transmitting, outputting, or displaying (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) or (iv: Storing and retrieving information, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015))).
As such, claim 1, 5, and 10 are not patent eligible.
8. Dependent claims 2-8:
Step 1: Yes
Claim 2-4 are drawn to is drawn to an early alert method, Claim 6-8 are drawn to an early alert apparatus, therefore claim 2-8 are falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter). Nonetheless, dependent claims 2-8 are also ineligible for the same reasons given with respect to claim 1, and 5.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes
Dependent claim 2-8 are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2, and 6 recites claim limitation of “computing the process variable estimation value in a weighted manner on the basis of the first estimation value and the second estimation value and respective weights thereof ”;
Claim 4, and 8 recites limitation of “wherein the overall prediction step further comprises estimating an accumulated value of the process variable within the time period on the basis of the first estimation value and/or the second estimation value” that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, enumerates a mental concept. A human can mentally perform basic calculating and estimating function of the claimed limitation as discussed above. Thus, these claimed functions are the judicial exceptions that are no more than a mental abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2: No
Claim 3, and 7 recites additional limitation of “obtaining the measurement value cycle by analysing received measurement values of multiple process variables to determine the periodicity of the process variables...”;
Claim 4, and 8 recites additional limitation of “receiving a time period and a maximum threshold set by a user”, “and issuing an early alert signal if the accumulated value is greater than the maximum threshold”.
The functions of receiving a measurement value and issuing signal are forms of insignificant input or output solution activities (i.e., extra solution), such that data receiving and outputting are necessary for the use of the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 6 further recite additional limitation of “the estimation value computing unit”,
Claim 8 recites “a user setting unit; wherein the overall prediction unit” are considered as do not integrate into practical application and are recited at a high level of generality such that thy amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: No
The additional functions that are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because the court decisions have determined that this additional element to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner for data storing, collecting, receiving, transmitting, outputting, or displaying (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (i: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) or (iv: Storing and retrieving information, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015))).
As such, dependent claim 2-8 are not patent eligible.
Pertinent Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yan (Pub: 2018/0054085) disclose a power generator system with anomaly detection includes a power generator that includes one or more physical components configured to provide electrical power. Sensors are configured to make measurements of a state of respective physical components, outputting respective time series of said measurements. A monitoring system includes a fitting module configured to determine a predictive model for each pair of a set of time series, an anomaly detection module configured to compare new values of each pair of time series to values predicted by the respective predictive model to determine if the respective predictive model is broken and to determine a number of broken predictive model, and an alert module configured to generate an anomaly alert if the number of broken predictive models exceeds a threshold (Para. [0005]).
Samples (Pub: 2009/0177439) disclose a novel method of monitoring a process. Embodiments of at least some the methods described herein also have the ability to take predetermined actions based on the monitored data. These actions avoid or mitigate process abnormalities or upsets that might impact production, product quality, and/or process efficiencies. Reference is made to FIG. 1, which is a generalized flow diagram showing a periodic or intermittent process monitoring method 10. The method includes a) obtaining at least one input process variable 100; b) determining a comparative process value based on the at least one input process variable using a first method having a first time-based weighting function 105; c) determining an expected process value based on the at least one input process variable using a second method having a second time-based weighting function 110; d) determining a first deviation value based on the at least one input process variable or historical data 115; e) calculating a limit range having a maximum limit and a minimum limit using the expected process value and the first deviation value 120; and f) comparing the comparative process value to the limit range 125 (Para. [0020]).
Holve (Pub: 2023/0274834) disclose the method selects features by, for each of a plurality of subsets of variables of the plurality of variables, fitting a model to the subset of variables to determine an accuracy for the subset of variables, comparing the determined accuracy to a first threshold, and response to determining that the determined accuracy is greater than or equal to the first threshold, selecting the subset of variables as a feature set. In some embodiments, the method selects models by for each of the plurality of features sets, for each of a plurality of model types: training a model of the model type based on the feature set and at least a portion of the received health records, evaluating the predictive ability of the trained model, comparing the predictive ability of the trained model to a second threshold, and in response to determining that the predictive ability of the trained model is greater than or equal to the second threshold, selecting and storing the trained model (Para. [0049]).
Allowable Subject Matter
The independent claim 1, 5, and 10 and dependent claim 2-4, and 6-8 are allowable once the outstanding 35 U.S.C 101 abstract idea rejection, and 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection is overcome as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 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, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at (571)272-9774. 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.
/JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights