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 .
Response to Arguments
35 USC 112(b). The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the office action dated 10/15/25 are withdrawn based on amendment to claims.
35 USC 101.
Applicant asserts that the claims do not recite a mental process because the claims as amended cannot be practically performed in the human mind citing the following additional elements: “receiving and storing a recorded targe response”, “receiving and storing a plurality of recorded reference responses … corresponding to known reference signals” “determining, form the recorded reference responses, values of one or more bias parameters” and “subsequent automated processing of recorded signal data”. (Remarks p. 13-14).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As to the “subsequent automated processing of recorded signal data”, this element merely recites an intended future result, and is not a positively recited claim limitations, thus not considered as an additional element. The remaining elements comprise additional elements that are insignificant extra solution activities and well understood, routine and conventional (see rejection under 35 USC 101 below), as such these limitations are generic computing components and environment are merely the computer being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The mental steps continue to be recited in the claim, and as amended merely use the generic computer as a tool to perform the mental steps. Therefore the mental steps can be practically performed in the human mind. Furthermore, mathematical concepts are recited as well, and it is not a relevant question as to the mathematical concepts as to whether they can practically be performed in the human mind.
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 11 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 11 recites “the bias-compensation parameter is applied to compensate for bias cause by wear and/or environmental conditions affecting the physical meter. It is unclear to what the bias-compensation parameter is applied. It is unclear if it is applied to data, to the meter or other.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, the claim recites Mental Steps and Mathematical Concepts related to identifying, measuring, and/or managing systemic bias using response theory. Specifically the mental steps and mathematical concepts recited, as further noted in parenthesis, include:
one or more context-appropriate response descriptions, each response description defining a relationship R=f(T, E, e) between (i) a response R in response to a perturbative signal T output by a source system,(ii) a systemic bias term E, and (iii) a random error term e, wherein E and e are distinct error components (the broadest reasonable interpretation of the source system signal includes that of a mental step, a system being one of human activity, and signal as behavior as set forth in the specification as in [0091], [00122], and the response descriptions defining relationship R=f(T,E,e) comprises a mathematical equation, relationship and calculation);
(b) in a set context defined by at least one fixed acquisition condition under which E is treated as constant for estimation, reference responses R(i) corresponding to known reference signals T(i), where i is an index for the plurality (mathematical relationships);
(c) target responses R(x) corresponding to an unknown target signal T(x) acquired in the set context (the broadest reasonable interpretation includes a mental step, a response to a questionnaire [0001], [0008], [0010], [0038] [0094], [00122]);
(d) determining, from the reference responses, values of one or more bias parameters that define E for the set context for at least one of the one or more response descriptions, wherein the plurality of reference responses is sufficient to determine or estimate a number of the bias parameters to be determined for the at least one response description (mathematical relationships); and
(e) using the at least one response description and the determined values of E, recalibrating the target response R(x) to compute at least one of: (i) a bias-compensated value corresponding to unknown target signal T(x), and (ii) a bias-compensation parameter comprising at least one of the determined bias parameters of E and a calibration coefficient derived therefrom (mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships).
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A, prong 2 analysis the claim recites the following additional elements: a computer-implemented method for compensating systemic bias in recorded signal data, comprising: at least on processor executing instructions stored in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the instructions comprising: storing in memory, one or more context-appropriate response descriptions, a response R recorded by a computing system from a data acquisition interface, receiving and storing a plurality of recorded reference responses R(i), receiving and storing a recorded target response R(x), store at least one of: (i) a bias-compensated value, and (ii) a bias-compensation parameter, for subsequent automated processing of recorded signal data by the computing system. These elements are merely generically recited in a manner that recites “apply it” as to the abstract idea in a computer comprising at least none processor, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Furthermore the limitations with respect to receiving and storing merely comprise an insignificant extra solution activity using a generically recited data acquisition interface. Furthermore the element “for subsequent automated processing of recorded signal data by the computing system” merely recites an intended future result, and is not a positively recited claim limitations, thus not considered as an additional element. For these reasons claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the analysis provided with respect to the Step 2A, prong 2 analysis applies equally to Step 2B. Furthermore the limitations with respect to receiving and storing, and using the data acquisition interface are well understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(g).i.,iv, receiving data , storing and retrieving information in memory. See also specification [00139-00140], [00145], [00149-00150],which describes a laundry list of data acquisition interfaces. The claim recites no inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. For this reason, the claim when considered as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-13 are rejected for at least the reasons cited with respect to claim 1. Claims 3-6, and 8-9, 11-13 include no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2, or Step 2B. Claims 3-6, and 8-9, and 11-13 merely further limit mental steps or mathematical concepts.
Claim 2 recites the following additional element: the data acquisition interface comprises at least one of a transducer, a sensor, a meter, and a user input interface that records the recorded response R as electronic data. Under the step 2A prong 2 analysis, this additional element merely generically recites various acceptable forms of data acquisition interfaces. For these reasons claim 2 is not integrated into a practical application. Under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the analysis provided with respect to the Step 2A, prong 2 analysis applies equally to Step 2B. The claim recites no inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. For this reason, the claim when considered as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites the following additional element: the recorded response R is produce by (ii) the data acquisition interface and (iii) a recording device that generates the recorded signal data. (note that the source system is interpreted as a mental step as in claim 1) Under the step 2A prong 2 analysis, these elements are merely generically recited computing components. For these reasons claim 7 is not integrated into a practical application. Under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the analysis provided with respect to the Step 2A, prong 2 analysis applies equally to Step 2B. The claim recites no inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the data acquisition interface and the recording device are both well understood, routine and conventional. See claim 1 as to the data acquisition interface. See also [00109] as to the recording device comprising a computer. For this reason, the claim when considered as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites the following additional element: the data acquisition interface comprises a physical meter and the recorded signal data comprises a meter response. Under the step 2A prong 2 analysis, this additional element, a meter, merely generically recites a form of data acquisition interfaces, and the recording continues to comprise an insignificant extra solution activity. For these reasons claim 2 is not integrated into a practical application. Under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the analysis provided with respect to the Step 2A, prong 2 analysis applies equally to Step 2B. The claim recites no inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore the recording continues to comprise well understood, routine, and conventional activity as in claim 1. For this reason, the claim when considered as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 14 is directed to an apparatus configured to execute the method as in claim 1. All steps executed by the apparatus as in claim 14 as configured are performed by the method as in claim 1. The claim 1 Step 2A prong 1 analysis applies equally to claim 14. Under the step 2A prong 2 analysis, claim 14 recites the following additional elements: a system comprising (a) a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions and (b) at least one processor coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the one processor configured to execute the instructions. These additional elements merely recite “apply it” in a computer. For these reasons claim 14 is not integrated into a practical application. Under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the analysis provided with respect to the Step 2A, prong 2 analysis applies equally to Step 2B. The claim recites no inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. For this reason, the claim when considered as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 15 is rejected for at least the reasons cited with respect to claim 14. Under Step 2A prong 2A prong 2 analysis, claim 15 recites the following further additional elements: the at least one processor is further configured to store, in memory, the recorded reference responses and the bias-compensated value and/or bias-compensation parameter, and to output at least one of them to a display, a data store, and a control interface. The storing in memory comprises an insignificant extra solution activity as set forth in claim 1, and the outputting to a display, data store, and control interface similarly comprises an insignificant extra solution activity. For these reasons, claim 15 is not integrated into a practical application. Under the step 2B analysis, the analysis set forth with respect to Step 2A prong 2 applies equally. Furthermore more the storing, and outputting comprise well understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(g).i.,iv, receiving or transmitting over a network, storing and retrieving information in memory. For these reasons, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the steps as in claim 1. The claim 1 analysis applies equally to claim 16.
Claim 17 is rejected for at least the reasons cited with respect to claim 16. Under the Step 2A prong 2, or Step 2B the claims include no further additional elements that would require further consideration.
Allowable Subject Matter
For the reasons set forth in the office action dated 10/15/25m Claims 1-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101, and the respective rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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, Andrew Caldwell can be reached on 571 272 3702. 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.
/EMILY E LAROCQUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2182