DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claim 1, claim 1 recites the term “tolerable range” in lines 16-17 (in corresponding lines 17-18 on page 1 of the claims with receipt date 01/16/2025) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tolerable range” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
It is not clear at what range is quantified as a “tolerable range” because the meets and bounds of the “tolerable range” is not defined.
Regarding claims 2-4, claims 2-4 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because claims 2-4 depends on all claim limitations of independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the term “tolerable range” in lines 3, 5 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tolerable range” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear at what range is quantified as a “tolerable range” because the meets and bounds of the “tolerable range” is not defined.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the term “tolerable range” in lines 3 and 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tolerable range” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear at what range is quantified as a “tolerable range” because the meets and bounds of the “tolerable range” is not defined.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the term “tolerable range” in lines 3, 5 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tolerable range” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear at what range is quantified as a “tolerable range” because the meets and bounds of the “tolerable range” is not defined.
Regarding independent claim 5, claim 5 recites the term “tolerable range” in lines 9-10, 14, 17 and 20, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tolerable range” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear at what range is quantified as a “tolerable range” because the meets and bounds of the “tolerable range” is not defined.
Regarding claims 6-8, claims 6-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because claims 6-8 depends on all claim limitations of independent claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the term “tolerable range” in lines 4 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tolerable range” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear at what range is quantified as a “tolerable range” because the meets and bounds of the “tolerable range” is not defined.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites the term “tolerable range” in lines 10 and 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tolerable range” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear at what range is quantified as a “tolerable range” because the meets and bounds of the “tolerable range” is not defined.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the term “tolerable range” in lines 4 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tolerable range” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear at what range is quantified as a “tolerable range” because the meets and bounds of the “tolerable range” is not defined.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1:
1. A self-checking fault diagnosis system comprising:
multiple sensors respectively outputting multiple sense data in real time, wherein at least one first sense data and at least one second sense data are defined from the multiple sense data;
a storage storing at least one second historical sense data corresponding to the at least one second sense data;
a processor signally connected to the multiple sensors and the storage and performing:
a first artificial intelligence (AI) model to output at least one first prediction data according to the at least one second sense data; and
a second AI model to output at least one second prediction data according to the at least one second historical sense data and the at least one first prediction data;
wherein when the processor determines that a difference between the at least one first sense data and the at least one first prediction data is within a first tolerable range and a difference between the at least one second sense data and the at least one second prediction data is within a second tolerable range, the processor outputs a notification message indicating pass of self-checking.
Analysis Steps for claim 1:
Step 1: Is claim 1 claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 1 recites a self-checking fault diagnosis system which is within one of the 4 statutory categories the process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Step 2a) Prong One: Does claim 1 recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, claim 1 recites “a first artificial intelligence (AI) model to output at least one first prediction data according to the at least one second sense data” that is mathematical model implemented by mathematical operations to generate an output data based on input data; therefore, mathematical operations are abstract idea.
Yes, claim 1 recites “a second AI model to output at least one second prediction data according to the at least one second historical sense data and the at least one first prediction data” that is mathematical model implemented by mathematical operations to generate an output data based on input data; therefore, mathematical operations are abstract idea.
Yes, claim 1 recites “determines that a difference between the at least one first sense data and the at least one first prediction data is within a first tolerable range and a difference between the at least one second sense data and the at least one second prediction data is within a second tolerable range” that the differences are determined by using mathematical operations and determining the differences is within corresponding tolerable range may be performed by human mantel activities through mentally compared the differences with the corresponding tolerable range; therefore, mathematical operations and human mantel activities are abstract idea.
Step 2a) Prong Two: Does claim 1 recite additional element that integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application?
No, claim 1 recites additional elements “multiple sensors respectively outputting multiple sense data in real time, wherein at least one first sense data and at least one second sense data are defined from the multiple sense data” that are merely general data collection activities by using the multiple sensors which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
No, claim 1 recites additional elements “A self-checking fault diagnosis system comprising: a storage storing at least one second historical sense data corresponding to the at least one second sense data; a processor signally connected to the multiple sensors and the storage” where the storage and the processor may be components of a general-purpose computer system, and signally connecting the processor to the multiple sensors and the storage are merely pre-solution activities to receive and stored collected data for further processing which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
No, claim 1 recites additional elements “the processor outputs a notification message indicating pass of self-checking” which is a general extra-solution activities merely outputting an indication which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
Step 2b): Does claim 1 recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No, when considering claim 1 as a whole, the storage and the processor of the general-purpose computer system, signally connecting the processor to the multiple sensors and the storage for further processing, and outputting the indication which do not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. There are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract ideas.
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
PNG
media_image1.png
949
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
690
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2-4, claims 2-4 are analogously rejected as in claim 1 where the differences are determined by using mathematical operations and determining the differences is within corresponding tolerable range may be performed by human mantel activities through mentally compared the differences with the corresponding tolerable range; therefore, mathematical operations and human mantel activities are abstract ideas; and the outputting of the indication messages which are general extra-solution activities merely outputting indication messages which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 5:
5. A self-checking fault diagnosis method, performed by a processor and comprising:
step A: receiving multiple sense data in real time, wherein at least one first sense data and at least one second sense data are defined from the multiple sense data;
step B: outputting at least one first prediction data by a first AI model according to the at least one second sense data;
step C: determining whether a difference between the at least one first sense data and the at least one first prediction data is within a first tolerable range;
step D: outputting at least one second prediction data by a second AI model according to at least one second historical sense data and the at least one first prediction data when the difference between the at least one first sense data and the at least one first prediction data is within the first tolerable range;
step E: determining whether a difference between the at least one second sense data and the at least one second prediction data is within a second tolerable range; and
step F: outputting a notification message indicating pass of self- checking when the difference between the at least one second sense data and the at least one second prediction data is within the second tolerable range.
Analysis Steps for claim 5:
Step 1: Is claim 5 claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 5 recites a self-checking fault diagnosis method which is within one of the 4 statutory categories the process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Step 2a) Prong One: Does claim 5 recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, claim 5 recites “outputting at least one first prediction data by a first AI model according to the at least one second sense data” that is mathematical model implemented by mathematical operations to generate an output data based on input data; therefore, mathematical operations are abstract idea.
Yes, claim 5 recites “determining whether a difference between the at least one first sense data and the at least one first prediction data is within a first tolerable range” that the difference is determined by using mathematical operations and determining the difference is within the tolerable range may be performed by human mantel activities through mentally compared the difference with the corresponding tolerable range; therefore, mathematical operations and human mantel activities are abstract idea.
Yes, claim 5 recites “outputting at least one second prediction data by a second AI model according to at least one second historical sense data and the at least one first prediction data when the difference between the at least one first sense data and the at least one first prediction data is within the first tolerable range” that is mathematical model implemented by mathematical operations to generate an output data based on input data after the previous comparison result; therefore, mathematical operations are abstract ideas.
Yes, claim 5 recites “determining whether a difference between the at least one second sense data and the at least one second prediction data is within a second tolerable range” that the difference is determined by using mathematical operations and determining the difference is within the tolerable range may be performed by human mantel activities through mentally compared the difference with the corresponding tolerable range; therefore, mathematical operations and human mantel activities are abstract ideas.
Step 2a) Prong Two: Does claim 5 recite additional element that integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application?
No, claim 5 recites additional elements “receiving multiple sense data in real time, wherein at least one first sense data and at least one second sense data are defined from the multiple sense data” that are merely general data collection activities which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
No, claim 5 recites additional element “a processor” where the processor may be component of a general-purpose computer system which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
No, claim 5 recites additional elements “outputting a notification message indicating pass of self-checking when the difference between the at least one second sense data and the at least one second prediction data is within the second tolerable range” which is a general extra-solution activities merely outputting an indication after previous comparison result which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
Step 2b): Does claim 5 recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No, when considering claim 5 as a whole, using the processor to process the multiple sense data which does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. There are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract ideas.
Therefore, claim 5 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
PNG
media_image1.png
949
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
690
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 is analogously rejected as in claim 5 where the differences are determined by using mathematical operations and determining the differences is within corresponding tolerable range may be performed by human mantel activities through mentally compared the differences with the corresponding tolerable range; therefore, mathematical operations and human mantel activities are abstract ideas; and the outputting of the indication messages which are general extra-solution activities merely outputting indication messages which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 7-8, claims 7-8 are analogously rejected as in claim 5 where the differences are determined by using mathematical operations and determining the differences is within corresponding tolerable range may be performed by human mantel activities through mentally compared the differences with the corresponding tolerable range; therefore, mathematical operations and human mantel activities are abstract ideas;
the outputting of the prediction data by the corresponding AI model that are mathematical models implemented by mathematical operations to generate corresponding output data based on corresponding input data; therefore, mathematical operations are abstract ideas; and
the outputting of the indication messages which are general extra-solution activities merely outputting indication messages which do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, but would be allowable if the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-8 are properly overcome without broadening the scopes of claims 1-8; and if the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-8 are properly overcome without broadening the scopes of claims 1-8.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reese et al. (US 2016/0039291) teaches “vehicle sensors 118 can include various sensors, sensor arrays, information systems, and the like. Data, information, and/or signals from the vehicle sensors 118 can be provided to the vehicle diagnostic system 102 as part of the test data 110. As noted above, the use of the test data 110 will be further described in more detail below. Briefly, however, it should be understood that the vehicle sensors 118 can include various sources of signals and/or data such as, for example, vehicle navigation systems and/or devices, thermometers, voltage gauges, ignition sensors, vehicle temperature gauges, speedometers, vehicle pressure gauges, ambient condition monitors (e.g., hygrometers, thermometers, barometers, etc.), altimeters, tire pressure gauges, combinations thereof, or the like. These and other vehicle sensors 118 can be used to generate signals and/or data included in the test data 110, and the test data 110 can be used for various purposes as illustrated and described herein” (e.g. fig. 1, [0038]) and;
“The diagnostics application 108 can be configured to obtain the test data 110 and package the test data 110 with other data obtained at the vehicle 112. According to various embodiments, the diagnostics application 108 can package the data as diagnostics data 122 and provide the diagnostics data 122 to a vehicle battery data analysis service 124. The vehicle battery data analysis service 124 can be an application executed and/or hosted by a computing device such as a desktop computer or sever computer. In the illustrated embodiment, the vehicle battery data analysis service 124 can be a callable service hosted by a server computer 126. It should be understood that this example is illustrative and therefore should not be construed as being limiting in any way” (e.g. fig. 1, [0039]).
Smith (US 2011/0046842) teaches “a vehicle 100 comprising a vehicle maintenance system 130 according to the present invention. Vehicle 100 is not limited to any one particular type of vehicle. In alternate embodiments, vehicle 100 may include transportation devices such as including, but not limited to, automobiles, motorcycles, busses, trucks, boats, trains, tractors, robotic devices, and aircraft. Vehicle 100 may be a commercial or military vehicle. The vehicle maintenance system (VMS) 130 is an intelligent vehicle diagnostic and prognostic system. VMS 130 collects prognostic and diagnostic data relating to a plurality of vehicle subsystems 110” (e.g. fig. 1, [0014]).
Doyle et al. (US 2005/0182536) teaches “a battery-state detection system 200 for use in a delivery vehicle. The detection system 200 comprises detection logic 202, timing logic 204, message processing logic 206, and memory 208” (e.g. fig. 2, [0029]); and.
“It should be understood that the elements shown in FIG. 2 are for illustrative purposes only, and that implementation of the detection system 200 could be achieved in one of any number of ways using greater or fewer functional elements. For example, the detection logic 202, timing logic 204, and message processing logic 206 could all be implemented in a computer program executed by one or more processors” (e.g. fig. 2, [0030]).
Palladino (US 7,652,448) teaches “a battery 21 and a temperature sensor 44 connected to supply data inputs (battery voltage, battery current and temperature) to a battery monitor module 60. Ideally the temperature reading is battery temperature, though another source may be used if reliably related to battery temperature. In truck applications where the batteries are carried on vehicle side rails removed from the engine compartment ambient temperature is acceptable. The battery monitor module 60 may be realized as a program running on a vehicle body computer. Through such an implementation the output of the monitoring program may be reported to any of a host 62 of interface systems including: a display, a gauge pack, a driver instrument panel; a telematics system; a smart display; or a worker's service tool. Data reported includes battery voltage, battery state of charge (SOC), battery state of recovery (SOR) and measured amps. SOC and SOR are defined more completely herein. On International vehicles host 62 is typically implemented on the Vehicle Information Module (VIM) which includes a display” (e.g. fig. 1, column 6: lines 29-49).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDONG ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5815. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached on (571) 272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAIDONG ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 9/26/2026
