DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to preliminary amendments filed 11/1/2024.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/7/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because blocks 302, 304, 306, 308, 310, 312, and 118 of Figure 3, blocks 402 through 414 of Figure 4, and blocks 502 through 518 of Figure 5 require labels. Specifically, MPEP 1.84(o) reads “Legends. Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing.” In this particular case, the Examiner has required legends for the blank numbered blocks in Figures 3, 4, and 5, due to one of ordinary skill in the art not being able to interpret these figures without manually labeling these components with guidance from the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 limitations are computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations as follows:
a module for obtaining in claim 9,
a module for using in claim 9,
a module for comparing the reconstructed current series in claim 9,
a module for computing a distribution function in claim 9,
a module for computing an area in claim 9, and
a module for comparing the area in claim 9.
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 § 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis of Claim 1
Claim 1. A method for detecting an anomaly in a system of an aircraft, comprising:
obtaining a series of measurements, called current series of measurement, of one or more physical quantities of the system, during a period of time when the system is functioning;
on the basis of the current series of measurements, providing by an encoder/decoder a reconstructed series, called reconstructed current series; and
comparing the reconstructed current series with the current series of measurements in order to obtain a series of anomalies, called current series of anomalies;
wherein:
computing a distribution function, called current distribution function of the current series of anomalies;
computing an area separating the current distribution function from a reference distribution function; and
comparing the area with a predefined threshold.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes and mathematical concepts
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” and “mathematic concepts” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes and mathematical calculations.
The claim recites the limitation of on the basis of the current series of measurements, providing by an encoder/decoder a reconstructed series, called reconstructed current series. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitations of “reconstructed series” and “reconstructed current series” are sequences of data. Generally recited data is merely provided based on other generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. current series of measurements) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. providing a reconstructed series). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The recitation of the “encoder/decoder” as providing a reconstructed series is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. encoder/decoder) as a tool to perform the processes (i.e. providing a reconstructed series) which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
The claim recites the limitation of comparing the reconstructed current series with the current series of measurements in order to obtain a series of anomalies, called current series of anomalies. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitations of “series of anomalies” and “current series of anomalies” are sequences of data representative anomalies. Generally recited data is merely compared to generate other generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. reconstructed current series and current series of measurements) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. obtain a series of anomalies). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of computing a distribution function, called current distribution function of the current series of anomalies. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “distribution function” is a mathematical function that describes probability of a system. A mathematical function is merely applied to generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a mathematical calculation. Such mathematical calculations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
The claim recites the limitation of computing an area separating the current distribution function from a reference distribution function. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “area” is data representation a separation distance. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “reference distribution function,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data representative of a mathematical function that describes probability of a system. Generally recited data is determined based on other generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. current distribution function and reference distribution function) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. compute area separating the current distribution function and reference distribution function). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of comparing the area with a predefined threshold. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. area and predefined threshold) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. compare the area with a predefined threshold). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception 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 potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional elements of obtaining a series of measurements, called current series of measurement, of one or more physical quantities of the system, during a period of time when the system is functioning. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “series of measurements” is a series of data. The limitation of “physical quantities of the system” merely describe the type of generally recited data, and no particular, non-generic sensors are required to obtain these claimed measurements. The limitation of “when the system is functioning” does not require a particular operation to be performed by a particular, non-generic system.
Therefore, the “obtaining” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general obtaining of a series of measurements during a period of time) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
In regards to the “encoder/decoder,” no technological details are recited with respect to the encoder/decoder itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the encoder/decoder is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The “aircraft” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose aircraft system and is recited at a high level of generality.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the obtaining step was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the encoder/decoder is a known function in data processing applications and that the “obtaining” step is known for detecting an anomaly in a common aircraft device, and the specification does not provide any indication that the aircraft is anything other than a conventional aircraft. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016), OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network and storing and retrieving information in memory are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 2-8
Dependent claims 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the 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.
Claim 2 recites the additional elements of the system is configured to operate in several functioning configurations and further comprising:
selecting, from encoders/decoders respectively associated with the functioning configurations, the one associated with the functioning configuration in which the device was during the current series of measurements.
The “selecting” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general selecting an encoder/decoder with the functioning configuration in which the device was during the current series of measurements) and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further limiting the “system” to operate in several functioning configurations represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the system to operate in several functioning configurations does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 3 recites the additional elements of the encoder/decoder is a pre-trained learning system for reconstructing series of measurements acquired during normal functioning of the system. Further limiting the “encoder/decoder” to be a pre-trained learning system for reconstructing series of measurements acquired during normal functioning of the system represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the encoder/decoder to be a pre-trained learning system for reconstructing series of measurements acquired during normal functioning of the system does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
No technological details are recited with respect to the “pre-trained learning system” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the pre-trained learning system is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of the encoder/decoder comprises an encoder neural network and a decoder neural network. No particular operations of the associated “neural network” are claimed. Further limiting the “encoder/decoder” to include an encoder neural network and a decoder neural network represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the encoder/decoder to include an encoder neural network and a decoder neural network does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of the neural networks are two recurrent neural networks with long short-term memory. No particular operations of the “neural networks” are claimed. Further limiting the “neural networks” to be two recurrent neural networks with long short-term memory represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the neural networks to be two recurrent neural networks with long short-term memory does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 6 recites the additional elements of the system is a system for de-icing an air inlet lip, the de-icing system being configured to collect the hot air from a turbomachine, and comprising a channel for conveying the hot air to the air inlet lip and at least one valve on the conveying channel.
The “system for de-icing an air inlet lip” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose de-icing system. The system for de-icing an air inlet lip contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in an insignificant extra-solution activity step or in a field-of-use limitation) and is merely an object on which the method operates (e.g., detecting an anomaly in the system); therefore, the claimed system for de-icing an air inlet lip does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Further limiting the “system” to be a system for de-icing an air inlet lip, the de-icing system being configured to collect the hot air from a turbomachine, and comprising a channel for conveying the hot air to the air inlet lip and at least one valve on the conveying channel represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the system to be a system for de-icing an air inlet lip, the de-icing system being configured to collect the hot air from a turbomachine, and comprising a channel for conveying the hot air to the air inlet lip and at least one valve on the conveying channel does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 7 recites the additional elements of the de-icing system comprises two valves in series on the conveying channel. Further limiting the “de-icing system” to include two valves in series on the conveying channel represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the de-icing system to include two valves in series on the conveying channel does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of a computer program downloadable from a communications network and/or recorded on a computer-readable medium, wherein it comprises instructions for executing the steps of a method according to claim 1, when said computer program is executed on a computer. The additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the already identified abstract exception using generic computer components (i.e. computer program on a computer-readable medium) when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Therefore, dependent 2-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
101 Analysis of Claim 9
Claim 9. A device for monitoring a system of an aircraft comprising:
a module for obtaining a series of measurements, called current series of measurement, of one or more physical quantities of the device, during a period of time when the device is functioning;
a module for using an encoder/decoder to provide a reconstructed series, called reconstructed current series, from the current series of measurements; and
a module for comparing the reconstructed current series with the current series of measurements in order to obtain a series of anomalies, called current series of anomalies;
wherein:
a module for computing a distribution function, called current distribution function, of the current series of anomalies;
a module for computing an area separating the current distribution function from a reference distribution function; and
a module for comparing the area with a predefined threshold.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites an apparatus. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes and mathematical concepts
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” and “mathematical concepts” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes and mathematical concepts.
The claim recites the limitation of a module for using an encoder/decoder to provide a reconstructed series, called reconstructed current series, from the current series of measurements. The limitation of “a module” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a processor.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “a module.” That is, other than reciting “a module,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “module” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. current series of measurements) and forming a simple observations and evaluations (i.e. providing a reconstructed series). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “module”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “a module” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The claim recites the limitation of a module for comparing the reconstructed current series with the current series of measurements in order to obtain a series of anomalies, called current series of anomalies. The limitation of “a module” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a processor.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “a module.” That is, other than reciting “a module,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “module” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. reconstructed current series and current series of measurements) and forming a simple observations and evaluations (i.e. obtain a series of anomalies). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “module”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “a module” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The claim recites the limitation of a module for computing a distribution function, called current distribution function, of the current series of anomalies. The limitation of “a module” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a processor.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “distribution function” is a mathematical function that describes probability of a system. A mathematical function is merely applied to generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a mathematical calculation. Such mathematical calculations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
The claim recites the limitation of a module for computing an area separating the current distribution function from a reference distribution function. The limitation of “a module” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a processor.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “a module.” That is, other than reciting “a module,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “module” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. current distribution function and reference distribution function) and forming a simple observations and evaluations (i.e. compute area separating the current distribution function and reference distribution function). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “module”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “a module” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The claim recites the limitation of a module for using an encoder/decoder to provide a reconstructed series, called reconstructed current series, from the current series of measurements. The limitation of “a module” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a processor.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “a module.” That is, other than reciting “a module,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “module” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. area and predefined threshold) and forming a simple observations and evaluations (i.e. compare the area with a predefined threshold). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “module”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “a module” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception 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 potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional elements of a module for obtaining a series of measurements, called current series of measurement, of one or more physical quantities of the device, during a period of time when the device is functioning. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “series of measurements” is a series of data. The limitation of “physical quantities of the system” merely describe the type of generally recited data, and no particular, non-generic sensors are required to obtain these claimed measurements. The limitation of “when the system is functioning” does not require a particular operation to be performed by a particular, non-generic system.
Therefore, the “obtaining” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general obtaining of a series of measurements during a period of time) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “module” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a processor. The module merely acts in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive or store data), and therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
No technological details are recited with respect to the “encoder/decoder” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the encoder/decoder is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The “aircraft” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose aircraft system and is recited at a high level of generality.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the obtaining step was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the encoder/decoder is a known function in data processing applications and that the “obtaining” step is known for detecting an anomaly in a common aircraft device, and the specification does not provide any indication that the aircraft and processors are anything other than a conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016), OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network and storing and retrieving information in memory are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claims 1-9 are thus found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 as directed to an abstract idea, with the additional computer-based elements, as tested above, not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites wherein the system is configured to operate in several functioning configurations and further comprising:
selecting, from encoders/decoders respectively associated with the functioning configurations, the one associated with the functioning configuration in which the device was during the current series of measurements.
This limitation does not read well. Specifically, only one “encoder/decoder” is provided in the system of claim 1, and the plural “encoders/decoders respectively associated with the functioning configurations” in which the system is configured to operate is not clearly defined. Assuming “the one” is referencing a particular encoder/decoder, the selection of “the one with the functioning configuration in which the device was during the current series of measurements” cannot be clearly determined. Additionally, see the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding further issues with this limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 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 2 recites the limitation of the device in the last line of claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, no preceding “device” is claimed, and a “device” cannot be considered an inherent component of the claimed system.
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, 2, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malhotra et al. (US 2020/0012918 A1), hereinafter Malhotra.
Claim 1
Malhotra discloses the claimed method for detecting an anomaly in a system of an aircraft (see Figure 2, described as receiving multi-dimensional time series input corresponding to a plurality of parameters of an entity, defined as a machine in ¶0035, where the machine is defined as an engine, turbine, or aircraft in ¶0003, and the input is processed to generate one or more anomaly scores, as described in ¶0040), comprising:
obtaining a series of measurements, called current series of measurement (i.e. xt…xt, as depicted in Figure 3B), of one or more physical quantities of the system, during a period of time when the system is functioning (see ¶0035, with respect to step 202 of Figure 2, regarding receiving, at an input layer, a multi-dimensional time series corresponding to a plurality of parameters of a machine);
on the basis of the current series of measurements, providing by an encoder/decoder a reconstructed series, called reconstructed current series (i.e.
x
^
t as depicted in Figure 3B) (see ¶0039, with respect to step 206 of Figure 2, regarding that a multi-dimensional time series is estimated, via RNN encoder-decoder model, based using a reduced-dimensional time series generated from the multi-dimensional time series received in step 104, as described in ¶0036-0038); and
comparing the reconstructed current series with the current series of measurements in order to obtain a series of anomalies, called current series of anomalies (see ¶0040, regarding a plurality of error vectors are computed by performing a comparison of the multi-dimensional time series and the estimated multi-dimensional time series).
Malhotra further discloses computing a distribution function, called current distribution function of the current series of anomalies (see ¶0040, with respect to step 210 of Figure 2, regarding that a plurality of error vectors are computed, as defined in equation (1) in ¶0031-0032). Given that the combination of the computed error vectors of Malhotra are expected to follow a specific distribution, reflected in the mean and covariance of error vectors corresponding to the normal training time series (see ¶0033-0034, ¶0030), the combination of the computed error vectors of Malhotra may reasonably represent a “current distribution function.”
Malhotra further discloses computing an area separating the current distribution function from a reference distribution function (see ¶0040, with respect to step 212 of Figure 2, regarding that one or more anomaly scores are generated based on the plurality of error vectors, where the anomaly score is computed according to equation (2), described in ¶0033-0034, using the mean and covariance matrix of the error vectors corresponding to the normal training time series instances for a window length of T ending at current time t). The “reference distribution function” is represented by the mean and covariance matrix of the error vectors corresponding to the normal training time series (see ¶0033-0034, ¶0030), and the “area separating the current distribution function from the reference distribution function” is represented by the Mahalanobis distance used to compute the anomaly score for each of the plurality of error vectors (see ¶0033-0034).
Malhotra further discloses comparing the area with a predefined threshold (see ¶0034, regarding the anomaly score is compared to a threshold).
Claim 2
Malhotra further discloses that the system is configured to operate in several functioning configurations (see ¶0022, regarding the use of the SPREAD “configuration,” ¶0045-0050, regarding alternative “configurations” of operations, such as standard AD, FF-AD, relevant-AD, and PCA-AD) and further comprising:
selecting, from encoders/decoders (see Figures 3B-C, depicting plural encoder/decoders making up sparse neural network encoder/decoder) respectively associated with the functioning configurations, the one associated with the functioning configuration in which the device was during the current series of measurements (see ¶0022, regarding that SPREAD is selected for use with a recurrent neural encoder-decoder).
Due to the issues discussed in the claim objection and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), prior art is applied liberally to the limitations of claim 2.
Claim 8
Malhotra further discloses a computer program downloadable from a communications network and/or recorded on a computer-readable medium, wherein it comprises instructions for executing the steps of a method according to claim 1, when said computer program is executed on a computer (see ¶0070-0071), as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 9
Malhotra discloses the claimed device for monitoring a system of an aircraft (see Figure 1, described as receiving multi-dimensional time series input corresponding to a plurality of parameters of an entity, defined as a machine in ¶0035, where the machine is defined as an engine, turbine, or aircraft in ¶0003, and the input is processed to generate one or more anomaly scores, as described in ¶0040), comprising module[s] (i.e. one or more processors 104) for performing the steps discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malhotra in view of Hinton et al. (“Reducing the Dimensionality of Data with Neural Networks,” 2006, Science), hereinafter Hinton.
Claim 3
Malhotra does not further disclose that the encoder/decoder is a pre-trained learning system for reconstructing series of measurements acquired during normal functioning of the system. However, pre-training a model is a well-known technique commonly used to achieve improved results, in light of Hinton.
Specifically, Hinton teaches an autoencoder that includes encoder and decoder networks (similar to the encoder/decoder taught by Malhotra) is a pre-trained learning system (see page 505, regarding the use of a “pretraining” procedure, such that after pretraining, encoder and decoder networks are produced to initially use the same weights, as described on page 507, second paragraph) for reconstructing series of measurements acquired during normal functioning (see abstract on page 504, regarding that the autoencoder is designed to reconstruct high-dimensional input vectors).
Since the systems of Malhotra and Hinton are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing an encoder/decoder that reconstructs a series of measurements, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the encoder/decoder of Malhotra to be a pre-trained learning system for reconstructing series of measurements acquired during normal functioning of the system, in light of Hinton, with the predictable result of providing initial weights close enough to a good solution (abstract on page 504 of Hinton) that support effective nonlinear dimensionality reduction of autoencoders (last paragraph on page 506 of Hinton).
Claim 4
Malhotra further discloses that the encoder/decoder comprises an encoder neural network and a decoder neural network (see ¶0039, with respect to Figure 3B, regarding the recurrent neural network encoder-decoder).
Claim 5
Malhotra further discloses that the neural networks are two recurrent neural networks with long short-term memory (see Figures 3B-C, depicting the encoder and decoder as at least two neural networks, where temporal dependencies are captured in the network, as described in ¶0042). As described in ¶0031 of Malhotra, with respect to Figure 3B, the encoder processes the multi-dimensional time series and compresses it into a fixed-dimensional vector for the decoder to reconstruct.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malhotra in view of Islam et al. (US 2018/0355797 A1), hereinafter Islam.
Claim 6
Malhotra does not further disclose that the system is a system for de-icing an air inlet lip, the de-icing system being configured to collect the hot air from a turbomachine, and comprising a channel for conveying the hot air to the air inlet lip and at least one valve on the conveying channel. However, Malhotra discloses the “physical quantities of the system” as multi-dimensional time series input corresponding to a plurality of parameters of an entity, defined as a machine in ¶0035, where the machine is defined as an engine, turbine, or aircraft in ¶0003; therefore, it would be obvious to define the specific entity of the aircraft of Malhotra as a de-icing system, in light of Islam.
Specifically, Islam teaches a system for de-icing an air inlet lip (see ¶0019, regarding nacelle inlet 16 is provided with an anti-icing system 18), the de-icing system being configured to collect the hot air from a turbomachine (see ¶0017-0019, with respect to Figure 1, regarding the arrangement of gas turbine engine 10, core casing and nacelle 12), and comprising a channel for conveying the hot air to the air inlet lip and at least one valve on the conveying channel (see ¶0019-0020, with respect to Figure 1, regarding hot air is provided at bleed air source 20 for supply to nacelle inlet 16 through bleed air supply line 22 that includes valve set 24). Islam further teaches that an air pressure sensor 30 is located downstream of the valve set 24 in the bleed air supply line 22 (see ¶0022), which measures pressure used by control logic to determine failures of the valves 26, 28 (see ¶0023), which may reasonably pertain to the “physical quantities” of the aircraft of Malhotra.
Since the systems of Malhotra and Islam are directed to the same purpose, i.e. detecting physical quantities of an aircraft for the determination of anomalies, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Malhotra to be a system for de-icing an air inlet lip, the de-icing system being configured to collect the hot air from a turbomachine, and comprising a channel for conveying the hot air to the air inlet lip and at least one valve on the conveying channel, in light of Islam, with the predictable result of applying the anomaly detection system applicable to aircraft of Malhotra (see ¶0003-0004) to an anti-icing system of an aircraft that benefits from improved detection of valve failure (¶0003-0004 of Islam).
Claim 7
Islam further teaches that the de-icing system comprises two valves in series on the conveying channel (see ¶0021, with respect to Figure 2, regarding that the valve set 24 includes an upper valve 26 and a lower valve 28, positioned on the bleed supply line 22, as described in ¶0020, with respect to Figure 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Lacaille et al. (US 2011/0288836 A1) teaches a system for detecting anomalies in an aeroengine by monitoring statistical variation of the behavior model (see abstract), and Lacaille et al. (US 2015/0287249 A1) teaches generating distributions of the probability of an anomaly relating to a set of components of an aircraft engine (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661