DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed 06/08/2026.
Claim(s) 1-5 have been considered (note, pending claims were filed by applicant as part of Response After Final Action on 04/20/2026 and were entered by examiner).
- Claim(s) 1-5 are pending.
- Claim(s) 1 and 4 had been amended and entered during the after-final filed 04/20/2026.
- No further amendment provided during the filing of Request for Continued Examination (RCE).
- No claim(s) has/have been newly added.
- No claim(s) has/have been canceled.
- Claim(s) 1 and 4 had been previously indicated to include allowable subject matter over prior arts (However, other rejection(s) is/are applicable as detailed below).
- Claim(s) 1-5 have been rejected as described below.
- This action is NON-FINAL.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/08/2026 has been entered.
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.
(As previously stated in the last office action, now slightly updated for the minor amendment):
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus, which is a statutory category of invention.
However, claim 1 recites, “identifying a content of the abnormality and an occurrence time at which the abnormality has occurred,”, and “determining” that an alarm reporting is necessary or not necessary based on certain conditions being met (such as according to certain set monitoring time, if the machine is during operation or not, an elapsed time exceeding a certain period, etc.) and based on the abnormality identification information added to the alarm information and the stored reporting setting information. These limitation(s) fall(s) into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited step(s) of identifying, and determining as described in applicant specification, [0014], [0032-38], etc. appear to be an observation/evaluation and judgement that can be performed in the human mind (and/or written with a pen on a paper) based on some known/available data, such as alarm information and relevant stored data. These/This limitation(s) therefore recite(s) concept(s) performed in the human mind. Also note, all of these steps, can be written down with a pen on a paper. Note, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) Even if a mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer devices to perform these identification and determination steps would have been recited, it would not have taken the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Thus, this/these limitation(s) fall(s) into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas in 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Besides the abstract ideas, claim recites additional element(s) such as “an alarm reporting apparatus connected to a plurality of sheet metal processing machines to be monitored, each machine being configured to generate, when an abnormality occurs, alarm information added with abnormality identification information, …”, “the alarm reporting apparatus comprising: a monitoring alarm information storage device configured to store reporting setting information for setting whether …”, “the alarm reporting apparatus is configured to … (determining steps)” and “… report the alarm to notify the monitoring apparatus” upon determination of necessity. Additionally, as amended, note the recitation of the alarm reporting apparatus also configured to “periodically access a plurality of storage devices, … wherein each storage device stores an alarm file [with various alarm information (data) …], wherein the periodically accessing of the plurality of storage devices is performed multiple times per hour, and retrieve from the plurality of storage devices respective alarm files during the periodic accessing of the plurality of service devices”, and “such that communication load between the alarm reporting apparatus and the monitoring apparatus is controlled by periodically accessing the plurality of storage devices while ensuring that necessary alarms are reported in accordance with the monitoring time and reporting setting information upon determining that the alarm reporting is necessary”.
“An alarm reporting apparatus connected to a plurality of sheet metal processing machines to be monitored, each machine being configured to generate, when an abnormality occurs, alarm information added with abnormality identification information, …” in the abovementioned preamble (and later on in the accessing storage device limitation to describe the type of data stored, as amended) is/are recited at a high level of generality and without improvements to computer functionality and also appears to have simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments (i.e., a particular technological environment or field of use) (See MPEP 2106.05(a), MPEP 2106.04(d), and MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similarly, “the alarm reporting apparatus is configured to … (determining steps)” is also recited at a high level of generality and so the same analysis applies. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claimed “the alarm reporting apparatus comprising: a monitoring alarm information storage device configured to store reporting setting information for setting whether …”, the alarm reporting apparatus also configured to “periodically access a plurality of storage devices, … wherein each storage device stores an alarm file [with various alarm information (data) …], wherein the periodically accessing of the plurality of storage devices is performed multiple times per hour, and retrieve from the plurality of storage devices respective alarm files during the periodic accessing of the plurality of service devices”, and “such that communication load between the alarm reporting apparatus and the monitoring apparatus is controlled by periodically accessing the plurality of storage devices while ensuring that necessary alarms are reported in accordance with the monitoring time and reporting setting information upon determining that the alarm reporting is necessary” (as amended), and “… report the alarm to notify the monitoring apparatus” upon determination of necessity is/are recited at a high level of generality. Absent any special structure or function provided within specification for these, for compact prosecution, these are thus interpreted to be merely invoking computer components as a tool such as generic storage device(s) and generic computer(s) since the information being stored doesn’t appear to require any special storage device or any special function performed by the storage device. In addition, the amended last limitation “such that communication load …” provides only a result-oriented solution and lacks details as to how the computer performed the functions, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". This limitation is interpreted to be about the periodical accessing of storage devices as the function and reporting and nothing more. This/these element(s) is/are general purpose computer/computer component or other machinery that are used in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or being considered as simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea and thus does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Besides above, as amended, the periodically accessing storage and retrieving alarm information functions amount to using a network to gather data. These limitations do not require any particular machine to acquire/transmit the data or any particular transformation of the data. These limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity which are incidental to the primary process of monitoring by various determinations and do not meaningfully limit the claim (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception due to the same reasons as stated above (and analyzed with details again below).
“An alarm reporting apparatus connected to a plurality of sheet metal processing machines to be monitored, each machine being configured to generate, when an abnormality occurs, alarm information added with abnormality identification information, …” in the abovementioned preamble is/are recited at a high level of generality and without improvements to computer functionality and also appears to have simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments (i.e., a particular technological environment or field of use) (See MPEP 2106.05(a), MPEP 2106.04(d), and MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similarly, “the alarm reporting apparatus is configured to … (determining steps)” is also recited at a high level of generality and so the same analysis applies. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claimed “the alarm reporting apparatus comprising: a monitoring alarm information storage device configured to store reporting setting information for setting whether …”, the alarm reporting apparatus also configured to “periodically access a plurality of storage devices, … wherein each storage device stores an alarm file [with various alarm information (data) …], wherein the periodically accessing of the plurality of storage devices is performed multiple times per hour, and retrieve from the plurality of storage devices respective alarm files during the periodic accessing of the plurality of service devices”, and “such that communication load between the alarm reporting apparatus and the monitoring apparatus is controlled by periodically accessing the plurality of storage devices while ensuring that necessary alarms are reported in accordance with the monitoring time and reporting setting information upon determining that the alarm reporting is necessary” (as amended), and “… report the alarm to notify the monitoring apparatus” upon determination of necessity is/are recited at a high level of generality. Absent any special structure or function provided within specification for these, for compact prosecution, these are thus interpreted to be merely invoking computer components as a tool such as generic storage device(s) and generic computer(s) since the information being stored doesn’t appear to require any special storage device or any special function performed by the storage device. In addition, the amended last limitation “such that communication load …” provides only a result-oriented solution and lacks details as to how the computer performed the functions, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". This limitation is interpreted to be about the periodical accessing of storage devices as the function and reporting and nothing more. This/these element(s) is/are general purpose computer/computer component or other machinery that are used in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or being considered as simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea and thus does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Next, besides above, as amended, the periodically accessing storage and retrieving alarm information functions amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and storing. These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found accessing/retrieving data (Receiving or transmitting data over a network) and storing/retrieving data (Storing and retrieving information in memory) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Similar analysis from claim 1 is applicable to independent claim(s) 4 and claim 4 is thus also not patent eligible. One difference is that claim 4 recites an alarm reporting method (process) and all the limitations in claim 4 have been addressed by the analysis of claim 1.
Therefore, claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, thus includes the abstract idea of claim 1. Further, the additional limitation(s) is/are mere expansion of the abstract idea (mental step of determining a necessity of reporting) where this/these limitation(s) just describe(s) the data type further that are to be registered and manipulated (using information from the acquired data), for example, a table can be drawn on paper with a combination of information and then can be looked up to use it for the determination step and no significant additional elements are provided here. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim 3 depends from claim 1, thus includes the abstract idea of claim 1. Further, the additional limitation(s) is/are mere expansion of the data gathering and storing step, and under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, it is interpreted to be mere recording/storing/changing data without any further processing/analyzing based on transmission of the data as nothing further is described in specification, 0023-24 and relevant paragraphs. Thus, it is insignificant extra-solution activity as obtaining data (Receiving or transmitting data over a network) is considered to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). No significant additional elements are provided here. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim 5 depends from claim 1, thus includes the abstract idea of claim 1. Further, the additional limitation(s) is/are mere expansion of the data gathering and reporting steps, and under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, it is interpreted to be mere data gathering through transmission of signal and then reporting/outputting to display signal related data. Thus, the transmission of signal here is insignificant extra-solution activity as obtaining data (Receiving or transmitting data over a network) is considered to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). And then the displaying step (using display and/or computing components recited in high level of generality) is merely invoking computer components as a tool. This/these element(s) is/are general purpose computer/computer component or other machinery that are used in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or being considered as simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) and thus does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)). No significant additional elements are provided here. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claim(s) 1-5 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
As previously stated, Claim(s) 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this office action as the limitations are not described or suggested by the prior arts of record (including any pertinent art(s)) alone, or in combination.
Claim 1, as amended, recites:
An alarm reporting apparatus connected to a plurality of sheet metal processing machines to be monitored, ed with abnormality identification information for identifying a content of the abnormality and an occurrence time at which the abnormality has occurred, the alarm reporting apparatus comprising:
a monitoring alarm information storage device configured to store reporting setting information for setting whether an abnormality is to be constantly reported for reporting an alarm to a monitoring apparatus regardless of whether or not the machine is during operation, or the abnormality is to be reported during operation for reporting the alarm to the monitoring apparatus only when the machine is during operation, the reporting setting information being set in advance for each abnormality identification information, and a monitoring time after the abnormality has occurred;
wherein the alarm reporting apparatus is configured to:
periodically access a plurality of storage devices, wherein each storage device is connected to at least one respective sheet metal processing machine of the plurality of sheet metal processing machines, wherein each storage device stores an alarm file including the alarm information generated by at least one respective machine added with the abnormality identification information for identifying the content of the abnormality and the occurrence time at which the abnormality has occurred, wherein the periodically accessing of the plurality of storage devices is performed multiple times per hour,
retrieve from the plurality of storage devices respective alarm files during the periodic accessing of the plurality of storage devices for each of the alarm files retrieved from the plurality of storage devices during the periodic accessing, the alarm reporting apparatus is configured to:
determine that an alarm reporting is necessary according to the monitoring time of 0 seconds regardless of whether or not the at least one respective machine is during operation if the abnormality occurring in the at least one respective machine in the retrieved alarm file is an abnormality to be constantly reported based on the abnormality identification information added to the alarm information in the retrieved alarm file and the reporting setting information and the monitoring time stored in the monitoring alarm information storage device,
determine that the alarm reporting is not necessary if the abnormality occurring in the at least one respective machine is an abnormality to be reported during operation and the at least one respective machine is not during operation based on the abnormality identification information in the retrieved alarm file and the occurrence time added to the alarm information in the retrieved alarm file, and the reporting setting information and the monitoring time stored in the monitoring alarm information storage device,
determine that the alarm reporting is not necessary if the abnormality occurring in the at least one respective machine is an abnormality to be reported during operation, the at least one respective machine is during operation, and an elapsed time from the occurrence of the abnormality has not exceeded a set monitoring time, and
determine that the alarm reporting is necessary if the abnormality occurring in the at least one respective machine is an abnormality to be reported during operation, the at least one respective machine is during operation, and the elapsed time from the occurrence of the abnormality has exceeded the set monitoring time or the set monitoring time is 0 seconds; and
report the alarm to notify the monitoring apparatus, only when it is determined that the alarm reporting is necessary, that an abnormality has occurred in the at least one respective machine to be monitored,
such that communication load between the alarm reporting apparatus and the monitoring apparatus is controlled by periodically accessing the plurality of storage devices while ensuring that necessary alarms are reported in accordance with the monitoring time and reporting setting information upon determining that the alarm reporting is necessary.
Regarding claim 1, based on thorough review and search performed, the closest prior art(s) identified is/are:
Grohman (US 20100102948 A1) – The disclosure of this art provides an HVAC data processing and communication network and a method of manufacturing the same. In one embodiment the network includes a system device and a user interface. The system device is configured to generate and locally store an alarm record in response to an alarm event. The system device is further configured to receive an alarm request message via a data bus. In response to receiving the alarm request message, the system device is configured to publish an alarm reporting message over the data bus. The user interface is configured to receive the alarm message and display an alert depending on a state of the flag (abstract). 0129, for example, teaches, “Summarizing various aspects of the preceding description, from the viewpoint of user notification there are four broad categories of alarms. The alarm types include continuous-type alarms and event-type alarms, both of which can be of escalation-type or are never escalated. In some embodiments, escalation alarms may be escalated. Any of these alarms may optionally be a hidden alarm, e.g., not displayed to a user, e.g., a homeowner. The hidden alarm may be reported to an installer, manufacturer or dealer, however. A Continuous-type escalation alarm is an alarm that is reported to the user after a device and case-specific time has elapsed from the start of the alarm condition. An event-type escalation alarm is an alarm that is reported to the user after a device- and/or case-specific number of alarm events of the same type has occurred. An immediate alarm is an alarm that is reported to the user upon the first occurrence of the alarm event. Note that alarm escalation need not impact the alarm clearing mechanism, as it is expected to be used for user/dealer notification only.”
This art generally teaches various broad categories of alarms and logging/reporting, but does not exactly teach/suggest the combination of limitations of claim 1, as amended.
Accordingly, prior arts of record, Komiya (JP 2013080291 A – Translation provided by Applicant in IDS), Kishi (US 20200096984 A1), Teruo (TWI646846B – Translation provided from Google Patents, 2019), Nakamura (US 5880965 A), and Grohman (US 20100102948 A1), alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claim 1.
Similar analysis is applicable to independent claim(s) 4, which also would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. Note, claims 2-3, and 5 depend from independent claim 1.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009,158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Response to arguments
Applicant's remarks and arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered (note, pending claims were filed by applicant as part of Response After Final Action on 04/20/2026 and were entered by examiner). See below for further details.
As the claims and arguments during RCE refer to those filed with the response after-final action of 04/20/2026, examiner would like to state that the response would be same as detailed in advisory action mailed 06/01/2026. That response will be repeated below, however, as the declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.132 is now considered by the examiner, additional response related to the arguments that drew support from the declaration is provided below as well.
The declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.132 has been thoroughly reviewed and considered by examiner. However, the declarations seem to be mere statements and opinions of the author and lack any factual support or evidence to support applicant’s arguments traversing rejections. See MPEP 716 that discusses Affidavits or Declarations Under 37 CFR 1.132 and Other Evidence Traversing Rejections. Accordingly, applicant’s submission of the declarations to traverse the rejections have been acknowledged but have not been deemed persuasive.
Based on amendment, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections for claims 1-5 have been overcome.
The affidavit or other evidence is entered. An explanation of the status of the claims after entry is below (explained within the response for the arguments for the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections).
Applicant arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections (involving abstract idea) have been considered but have been deemed to be not persuasive and so the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections remain as given in the previous office action.
Applicant argues in page 8 last para, "the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and, even if they were, they recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea." In support of this main argument, applicant argues in detail in pages 9-17 and here's the breakdown with examiner's responses:
- Regarding applicant’s arguments starting last para of page 8 to first para of page 11 in applicant remarks, Examiner would like to note: applicant argues that the accessing and retrieving data from storage device cannot be mental process. For example, applicant states, "A human operator cannot continuously access multiple machine storage devices at sub-minute intervals, track elapsed time for each abnormality across multiple machines, and apply predefined reporting logic to each alarm condition in real time.".
--> The accessing and retrieving data/information are additional features that have been considered as part of data gathering and storing and not mental step anyway. See final rejection mailed 01/23/2026 for further details.
---> Aside from this argument in page 11, the determination step (mental step) is also argued in page 9-10, such as, the claim requiring evaluating machine-generated data using machine-specific parameters and time-dependent conditions. Examiner would like to state that regardless of the description of the type of data/information, as mentioned in the last office action page 4, under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of specification 0014, 0032-38, etc., these are all just information/data that can be written on paper with a pen and a human can use logic and conditions along with instructions. The repeated time-based evaluation argued in page 10 (2nd para) can also be done similarly on a paper with a pen.
---> In page 11, 2nd para, applicant states, "... the court held that claims reciting specific rules for automating a process were not directed to an abstract idea where the claimed rules were applied in a manner that could not practically be performed mentally." Automation is not part of claim language or applicant’s specification. While some rules are part of the claim language, note, examiner’s rejection details out how that is part of the abstract idea as analyzed. For example, the specificity and time dependency of the rules (such as, determining that alarm reporting is necessary at a certain monitoring time, etc.) and applying them can be done on paper with a pen. Accordingly, absent any factual evidence to support this argument (as per MPEP 716), the argument is deemed not to be persuasive.
---> For the "Similarly here, claim 1 recites specific rules governing alarm reporting based on machine operating state and elapsed time, and those rules are applied across multiple machines through continuous system operation.", examiner's response is same as above. Under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification as described above, the specificity and the time-dependency of the rules and applying them can be done on paper with a pen.
Additional notes: Regarding applicant’s arguments in last 2 paras of page 10 continued to 1st para of page 11 that draw support from declaration #27-30, examiner respectfully disagrees upon consideration.
The adjustment of settings is interpreted to be part of the mental step (on paper with a pen), meaning the judicial exception itself. There are no features in the claim that allow the improvement to be implemented in the system/technology and instead it is part of the mental step itself, as currently claimed.
See MPEP 2106.05(a): "... it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology."
Also note, claim is broader than what is being argued here. Continuous and repeated data gathering (retrieval of alarm data) from multiple machine-associated storage devices, repeated evaluation and continuous tracking of elapsed time and machine operating state can mean doing these twice in an hour for two machines/storage devices, for example.
The same response is applicable to applicant’s argument regarding these operations being performed mentally in last line of para3 of page 11 of remarks that draws support from declaration #26-30 as well.
Examiner would like to emphasize, while there may be a scale at which a human cannot process all of the data, the claim is not limited to that. There is no claimed number of machines, alarms, etc. to support the position that it is beyond the scope of a human.
Applicant's arguments for step 2A prong two (pages 11-14) have been considered and have been deemed not to be persuasive. See below.
o Regarding applicant’s arguments in pages 12-13 related to “improv(ing) the performance of the monitoring and reporting system of a sheet metal processing machine”, examiner respectfully disagrees.
See MPEP 2106.05(a):
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception.
Also, applicant argues in 3rd para of page 12, "As described in the specification, such machines generate large volumes of alarm data, including both transient abnormalities and persistent fault conditions."
--> See MPEP 2145(VI):
- Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
o Page 12 continued to page 13 focus on the additional elements and structures helping the reporting determination to be integrated into a system that controls communication behavior across a network of machines.
--> As previously stated in the last office action, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the claim and instead these generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. For example, employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment (in the instant claim’s case, the sheet metal processing), does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient.
o Regarding applicant’s arguments towards the middle of page 14 “The claim is also tied to a particular machine. The recited operations are performed in conjunction with sheet metal processing machines and their associated storage devices, which are integral to the claimed system.”, examiner respectfully disagrees.
For the limitation that includes each storage device connected to at least one sheet metal processing machine along with the previously included recitation of the alarm reporting apparatus being “connected to a plurality of sheet metal processing machines to be monitored”, examiner would like to point out that the sheet metal processing machine has been merely recited as a type of machine (to be monitored) connected to the storage device. Also, without any details such as any structural arrangement of the machine in a particular way to implement the claimed processes or recitation of details as to how the added element/machine integrates the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception, it is not clear to examiner as to why/how such a particular sheet metal processing machine that is integral to the claim. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Additionally, use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(b).)
o Regarding applicant’s arguments in para 4 of page 14 “Furthermore, the claim does not merely state an abstract idea and instruct a practitioner to apply it. Instead, it recites a specific sequence of operations that define how alarm data is retrieved, evaluated, and selectively reported in a machine monitoring environment.”, examiner respectfully disagrees.
This argument does not provide reasoning as to which limitations are being pointed to for specifically being an abstract idea and which one(s) related to "mere instructions to apply". It seems to be a mere conclusion drawn by applicant without providing any further support. Regardless, this argument is addressed above within the breakdown of responses and in the last office action throughout the rejection for each and every limitation of the claim as applicable.
Additional notes: Regarding applicant’s arguments in last 2 paras of page 13 continued to 1st para of page 14 that draw support from declaration #21-24 and #23-26, examiner respectfully disagrees upon consideration.
First, absent any supporting evidence provided, these declarations are considered to be mere statements regarding their invention by the applicant.
Also, several factors such as volume of alarms, differentiating between program-related abnormality that can be resolved quickly and hardware-related abnormality that is not immediately resolvable, etc. are not part of the current claim language. Even if these were so, supporting evidence would need to be provided in the relevant declaration for these not to be deemed as mere statements.
Next, the step 2B arguments in pages 15-17 have been considered and have been deemed not to be persuasive. See below.
Regarding applicant’s arguments in last 2 paras of page 15 that draw support from declaration #7-10, 32 and then #31-33, examiner respectfully disagrees upon consideration.
First, declaration #7-10 identify what applicant considers as the relevant field of art and the problem to be solved.
Also, factors such as large volume of alarms are not part of the current claim language. Even if these were so, supporting evidence would need to be provided in the relevant declaration for these not to be deemed as mere statements (such as declaration #31-32). Without evidence, these statements appear to be opinions as there is no evidence provided at this time to factually support them, therefore the argument is deemed not to be persuasive. See MPEP 716.01.
See below for further explanation on examiner’s response in this regard for step 2B arguments.
Page 16 mainly includes applicant's argument that the office does not provide evidence that the claimed combination of features is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field.
--> Examiner respectfully disagrees.
--> See final rejection mailed 01/23/2026 in page 9, 2nd para, that provides evidence where courts have found accessing/retrieving data (Receiving or transmitting data over a network) and storing/retrieving data (Storing and retrieving information in memory) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim is maintained to be deemed as not patent eligible.
Similar response is applicable to claim 4.
Therefore, dependent claims' rejections are also to be maintained.
Note, based on further refreshed search and consideration, claims 1-5 remain to have been declared to have allowable subject matter, however, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are still applicable to these claims.
Accordingly, claims 1-5 are patentable over prior arts, but are not patent eligible.
Pertinent Art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Al-Ali et al. (US 20080228052 A1) relates to a physiological trend monitor that has a sensor signal responsive to multiple wavelengths of light transmitted into a tissue site. The transmitted light is detected after attenuation by pulsatile blood flow within the tissue site. A processor has an input responsive to the sensor signal and a physiological parameter output. Features are extracted from the physiological parameter output. Criteria are applied to the features. An alarm output is generated when the criteria are satisfied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARZIA T MONTY whose telephone number is (571)272-5441. The examiner can normally be reached on M, W-F: 11am -5pm (approximately). 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, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5441.
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.
/MARZIA T MONTY/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights