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 .
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 1-4, 8-12, 15-18
Claims 1-4, 8-12, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. However, the claimed invention is directed to performing a mental process and mathematical calculations without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of the claims regarding subject matter eligibility in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG):
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis
Step 1: Do the Claims Specify a Statutory Category?
Claims 1-4, 8 describe a method/process, claims 9-12 describe a system/device, and claims 15-17 describe a non-transitory storage medium, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 1-4, 8
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 1 recites collecting a running log of a first device, obtaining data from a log database, detecting an abnormal trend of a second device by collecting temperature data in time periods and collecting time series data, dividing the timeseries data into time windows, and calculating average temperatures, and determining an abnormal trend in the second device by obtaining a result based on the calculated average, and determining a handling strategy according to the collected data. The limitations describe matter that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can be performed in the human mind using collected data from a generic computing system. The limitations invoke collecting data and analyzing said data to identify an existing handling strategy. Such a collection and/or evaluation of data can be performed by a human and recites a mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the practical performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The applicant has previously amended the claim to recite the matter of canceled claim 5. The amendment comprises more data collection and more mathematical concepts to derive results from the calculations.
The applicant has presently amended the claims to recite the language of now canceled claims. The new language comprises measuring a time difference of every two time windows, determining a shortest time difference, determining one or more time window groups corresponding to the shortest distance, calculating a mean difference of the group(s) according to an average temperature of each time window, determine a first result in response to no difference in a preset range, determine a second result in response to the mean differences in the range which indicates no abnormal trend in the working temperatures. The examiner interprets as mere mathematical concepts using collected data to mentally determine a conclusion upon the calculated results.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes the performance of mathematical calculations (even if a formula is not recited in the claim), then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The amended claims merely recite performing mathematical concepts on collected data, concepts that can be performed mentally.
The applicant has also recited resolving an abnormal problem using handling strategies. Without specific details of the abnormal problem nor how it is resolved, one can interpret this as a mere determination of a resolution to a problem such as issuing a ticket, emailing or alerting a user of the device, etc.
Claims 2-4, 8 recite more data collection and/or data analysis.
As explained in the October 2019 Update to the 2019 PEG, when determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), consideration must be given as to whether a claim recites a mathematical concept or merely includes limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. The claims recite data measuring, determining distances and groups, calculating mean differences of groups, and determining results.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes the performance of mathematical calculations (even if a formula is not recited in the claim), then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, claims 2-11 each recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 1 recites a sensor, devices and a database. Even if the described methods are implemented on a computer, there is no indication that the combination of elements in the claim solves any particular technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing computer technology in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exceptions. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s). The devices and database cited in the claim is described at a high level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The sensor is merely a means to collect data for data collection.
The claim further recites collecting data, detecting trends from the data, and determining a handling strategy. These limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering, data analysis, and generically determining a resolution to an identified problem, respectively, without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
While the claim does recite wherein a temperature is determined to be abnormal, there are no details of any specific remediation to a specific abnormality.
Claims 2-4, 8 describe further details regarding the data collection, analysis and/or statistical/mathematical calculations. These claims contain no additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
In the instant case, as detailed in the analysis for Step 2A-Prong 2, claim 1 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea. The devices recited in the claim describe a generic computer processor and/or computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
The limitations pertaining to data collection, analyzing said data, and generically determining a handling strategy to an identified problem describe insignificant extra-solution activity and are written at a high level in a generic manner without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. Therefore, these limitations recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas defined in the claim.
The new language of resolving the abnormal problem is interpreted under MPEP 2106.05(f):
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
Claims 1-4, 8 recite limitations regarding data collection, analysis, and mathematical calculations thereof. As discussed above in the Step 2A - Prong 2 analysis regarding integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the limitations, as currently written, describe mathematical calculations and evaluations describe mathematical concepts that can be performed by a human (i.e., as a mental process and/or by using pen/paper) and are therefore directed to the identified judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer component, or utilizing generic artificial intelligence technology to apply the identified judicial exception, does not describe an inventive concept.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 9-12
Claims 9-12 contain limitations for a system which are similar to the limitations for the methods specified in claims 1-4, 8, respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1, Step 2A – Prong 2, and Step 2B for claims 9-12 is similar to that presented above for claims 1-4, 8.
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 9-12 recite and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract ideas(s). Claims 9-12 are therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 15-18
Claims 15-18 contain limitations for a non-transitory storage medium which are similar to the limitations for the methods specified in claims 1-4, 8, respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1 and Step 2A – Prong 2 for claims 15-18 is similar to that presented above for claims 1-4, 8.
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Claim 15 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites the additional elements of a “non-transitory storage medium”. The storage medium and processors cited in the claim describe generic computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception. The enabling of the processors to troubleshoot a performance problem recites intended use of the claimed limitations and does not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the amended new language overcomes the USC 101 rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In the submitted Remarks, dated 8/11/26, the applicant has argued the claims are not directed to a mental process since the “monitoring” requires action using a temperature sensor. The examiner interprets the sensor as merely a means to collect data. The claims explicitly recite “collecting working temperatures”. As it is now written, the claims do not recite the sensor doing an “action” as argued other than just supplying data to the data analysis system. The applicant also argues the claims recite “detecting” that requires various steps. The examiner interprets these “steps” as merely mathematical concepts that can be performed using a human mind with or without the aid of a computer or calculator. Furthermore, the applicant argues the claims are not directed to mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations. The examiner respectfully disagrees and refers to the explicit language of “measuring” and “calculating” in the claims.
The applicant has argued the claims are directed to a practical application related to abnormality monitoring, which is configured to ensure stable operation and performance. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering, calculating results, and generically applying a resolution to an unidentified problem, respectively, without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application. Details to ensure stable operation and performance are not reflected in the claims.
The applicant also argues the claims improve the technological field of abnormality handling. The examiner contends that no technological field is recited nor how a specific field is improved. The claims merely recite “devices” and generic computer components such as processor, storage, etc. in the claims. Even if the described methods are implemented on a computer, there is no indication that the combination of elements in the claim solves any particular technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing computer technology in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exceptions. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s). The processor cited in the claim is described at a high level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant elaborate on specific technological advancements the claims are directed other than data analysis. The applicant is also suggested to elaborate on the “resolving” language to include specific language as to abnormal problems and remediation details to correct the problems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S MCCARTHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571)272-3655. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S MCCARTHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights