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 .
The amendment filed on October 9, 2025 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because box 20 (Fig. 2) should be provided with descriptive text label – apparatus – (see MPEP 608.02(b)(II) FP 6.22).
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 Objections
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
- claims 8 and 9, “the dimensions” (lines 1-2) should be – the one or more dimensions – (see claim 1, line 5).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites an abstract idea of “obtaining a first matrix comprising a plurality of monitored variables as columns and a plurality of observations of the monitored variables measured from the target system as rows, wherein each row is associated with one or more dimensions, wherein the dimensions define context for the respective observation” (evaluation, mental process), “partitioning the first matrix into a plurality of submatrices, each submatrix comprising a subset of rows of the first matrix” (evaluation, mental process), “separately processing the submatrices by scaling values of the submatrix (412-416) to obtain a scaled submatrix, wherein the scaling is performed by constants calculated from the observations of the first matrix and wherein the scaling is performed by dividing the values of the submatrix by a respective constant” (mathematical process), “the respective constant for each column is mean calculated over a respective column of the first matrix” (mathematical concept), “processing the scaled submatrix by performing
anomaly detection on the values of the scaled submatrix and by aggregating results of the anomaly detection by the respective one or more dimensions to a result matrix” (evaluation, mental process).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
The corrective action is recited at a high level of generality. Further, causing a corrective action is not positively recited. The control signal is merely “configured” to cause corrective action. Thus, the result matrix or information derived from the result matrix is not used/applied in a meaningful way (see MPEP 2106(e)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(A)).
Causing corrective action based on monitored variables is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity known in the industry, have been found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the claimed judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The remaining dependent claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 6-9, 11, and 12 are directed to conventional elements.
Claims 2-5 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 12 is further directed to a computer program which is a non-statutory subject matter.
Accordingly, claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-12 are not patent eligible under 35 US 101.
Prior Art Note
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 11, and 12 do not have a prior art rejection.
The combination as claimed wherein a computer implemented method for controlling a target system comprising the respective constant for each column is mean calculated over the respective column of the first matrix (claim 1) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on October 9, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the drawing objection of “304” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection of “304” has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) of claim 2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 112(a) of claim 2 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicants argue “[w]ith regard to step 2A, prong 1 of MPEP 2106, the computer-implemented matrix operations of claim 1 establish an improvement over existing technology in the form of computational speed and efficiency, and as such do not merely recite an abstract idea.”
Examiner’s position is that, pursuant to MPEP 2106.05(a), “[a]indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.”
The specification does not identify a technical problem (e.g., see background section) and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution, the unconventional technical solution is not expressed in the claim (e.g., see summary section). Accordingly, the claims are not directed to an improvement over existing technology in the form of computational speed and efficiency, pursuant to MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicants further argue “using information to perform corrective action integrates that information with the overall control scheme of the system, which is also a practical application of a judicial exception.”
Examiner’s position as discussed above is that the corrective action is recited at a high level of generality. Further, causing a corrective action is not positively recited. The control signal is merely “configured” to cause corrective action. Thus, the result matrix or information derived from the result matrix is not used/applied in a meaningful way (see MPEP 2106(e)). Therefore, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bobbitt ("Standardization vs. Normalization: What's the Difference?) discloses a standardized values formula including using a mean to calculate a standard deviation (page 1). However, Bobbitt does not disclose a constant for each column is mean calculated over the respective column of the first matrix.
Definition of Scaling: Scaling is the process of changing the size of quantity (increasing or decreasing).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 November 6, 2025
Prosecution Insights