Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 4/6/2026. Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 14 are pending.
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 1-5, 8-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method of controlling sampling of a location-dependent quantity comprising:
providing a plurality of sensors, wherein each sensor of the plurality of sensors is a mobile ambient sensor moving periodically along a predefined route, and is configured for performing measurements of the location-dependent quantity;
obtaining one or more desired measuring locations at which to measure the location-dependent quantity;
obtaining first data representative of a first predefined route along which a first sensor of the plurality of sensors periodically moves;
based on the first data, ascertaining that the first predefined route has an overlap with a first desired measuring location of the one or more desired measuring locations, and
directly or indirectly controlling the first sensor to measure the location-dependent quantity at a first sampling location, wherein the first sampling location is at the first desired measuring location.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
In the instant case, claim 1 is found to recite at least one judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea), that being a mental process. This can be seen in the claim limitations of ascertaining step, which is the judicial exception of a mental process because these limitations are merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements in order to select a particular sensor and is capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed method recites additional elements including “providing a plurality of sensors, wherein each sensor of the plurality of sensors is a mobile ambient sensor moving periodically along a predefined route, and is configured for performing measurements of the location-dependent quantity”; “obtaining one or more desired measuring locations at which to measure the location-dependent quantity”; “obtaining first data representative of a first predefined route along which a first sensor of the plurality of sensors periodically moves”; and “directly or indirectly controlling the first sensor to measure the location-dependent quantity at a first sampling location, wherein the first sampling location is at the first desired measuring location”. However these elements are found to be data gathering (i.e. the obtaining steps) and output steps (i.e., the controlling step), which are recited at a high level of generality, and thus merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, are recited at such a high level of generality using known, broadly claimed sensors (i.e., the providing step), and information regarding those sensors, that it can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to a general, known technological environment.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, 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. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed method. For instance, nothing is done with the measured location-dependent quantity.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely performs insignificant extra-solution activit(ies). “Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by the Nagao reference, which is cited in the 102(a)(1) rejections below. Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that Claim 1, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, 2-5, 8-10, and 14 merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for parent claims 1. Specifically, the dependent claims merely recite further aspects of the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagao (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0108350).
Regarding Claim 1, Nagao teaches a method of controlling sampling of a location-dependent quantity, the method comprising: providing a plurality of sensors, wherein each sensor of the plurality of sensors is a mobile ambient sensor moving periodically along a predefined route, and is configured for performing measurements of the location-dependent quantity (Fig. 1, sensors 104a-e, it is noted that bus 102b and train 102c would travel periodically along predefined routes, and bicycle 102a, car 102d, and pedestrian 102e may also travel periodically along predefined routes, e.g., a daily commute); obtaining one or more desired measuring locations at which to measure the location-dependent quantity (Fig. 4, block 402; paragraph [0066] environmental information of interest associated with certain geographic areas); obtaining first data representative of a first predefined route along which a first sensor of the plurality of sensors periodically moves (Fig. 4, block 404 and paragraph [0067], intended destination proximate to an area); based on the first data, ascertaining that the first predefined route has an overlap with a first desired measuring location of the one or more desired measuring locations (Fig. 4, block 404 and paragraph [0067], intended destination proximate to an area associated with the environmental information of interest; determination of proximity is equated to claimed ascertaining of overlap), and directly or indirectly controlling the first sensor to measure the location-dependent quantity at a first sampling location, wherein the first sampling location is at the first desired measuring location (Fig. 4, block 406, paragraph [0068]).
Regarding Claim 2, Nagao teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Nagao further teaches wherein the method further comprises: obtaining second data representative of a second predefined route along which a second sensor of the plurality of sensors periodically moves (Fig. 4, block 404 and paragraph [0067], intended destination proximate to an area would be determined for each of the sensor(s) 104a-e); based on the second data, ascertaining that the second predefined route also has an overlap with the first desired measuring location (Fig. 4, block 404 and paragraph [0067], intended destination proximate to an area associated with the environmental information of interest; determination of proximity is equated to claimed ascertaining of overlap), and directly or indirectly controlling the second sensor to measure the location-dependent quantity at a second sampling location (Fig. 4, block 406, paragraph [0068]), wherein the second sampling location is also at the first desired measuring location (Fig. 2, blocks 202, 204, and 206 and paragraphs [0048]-[0050], data is collected from different sensors for same geographic location).
Regarding Claim 3, Nagao teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Nagao further teaches wherein the method includes setting a sampling periodicity to apply at the first sampling location (paragraphs [0055] and [0066], information needs to be collected within a certain time period; certain time period is equated to set sampling periodicity).
Regarding Claim 8, Nagao teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Nagao further teaches performed by a controller not associated with the first sensor (Fig. 1, information service provider system 110), wherein data representing the assigned first sampling location is distributed from the controller to the first sensor by wireless communication (paragraph [0026]).
Regarding Claim 9, Nagao teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Nagao further teaches wherein the first sensor is mounted on a geolocation-enabled vehicle (Fig. 1, vehicle 102d, sensor(s) 104d, paragraph [0025]).
Regarding Claim 10, Nagao teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 9. Nagao further teaches wherein another one of the plurality of sensors is mounted on the geolocation-enabled vehicle (Fig. 1, vehicle 102d , sensor(s) 104d).
Regarding Claim 14, Nagao teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Nagao further teaches wherein the method further comprises receiving, from the first sensor, a result of measuring the location-dependent quantity at the first sampling location (Fig. 4, block 408).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagao in view of Dingle et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0025480, hereinafter “Dingle”).
Regarding Claim 4, Nagao teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 3. Nagao does not specifically teach wherein the first data is further representative of a predefined refractory period associated with the first sensor, wherein the predefined refractory period must elapse between two consecutive sampling instances; and wherein the sampling periodicity is set in view of the predefined refractory period. However, Dingle teaches wherein the first data is further representative of a predefined refractory period associated with the first sensor, wherein the predefined refractory period must elapse between two consecutive sampling instances; and wherein the sampling periodicity is set in view of the predefined refractory period (paragraphs [0127], [0137], and [0171]; vehicle-mounted camera sampling locations are based on frame rate of the camera, which is equated to predefined refractory period). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the frame rate information of Dingle in the system of Nagao, in order to ensure that desired data is detected by the camera (see Dingle, paragraphs [0127], [0137], and [0171]).
Regarding Claim 5, Nagao teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Nagao does not specifically teach wherein the first data is further representative of a predefined refractory period associated with the first sensor, wherein the predefined refractory period must elapse between two consecutive sampling instances, and wherein the method further comprises: based on the first data, ascertaining that the first predefined route has an overlap with a second desired measuring location of the one or more desired measuring locations, and directly or indirectly controlling the first sensor to measure the location-dependent quantity at a second sampling location, wherein a time separation or spatial separation of the first and second sampling locations is selected in view of the predefined refractory period and the first predefined route, wherein the second sampling location is at the second desired measuring location. However, Dingle teaches wherein the first data is further representative of a predefined refractory period associated with the first sensor, wherein the predefined refractory period must elapse between two consecutive sampling instances (paragraphs [0127], [0137], and [0171]; vehicle-mounted camera sampling locations are based on frame rate of the camera, which is equated to predefined refractory period), and wherein the method further comprises: based on the first data, ascertaining that the first predefined route has an overlap with a second desired measuring location of the one or more desired measuring locations, and directly or indirectly controlling the first sensor to measure the location-dependent quantity at a second sampling location, wherein a time separation or spatial separation of the first and second sampling locations is selected in view of the predefined refractory period and the first predefined route, wherein the second sampling location is at the second desired measuring location (paragraphs [0127], [0137], and [0171]; locations at which different images are taken by camera on vehicle route are equated to first sampling location and second sampling location; measuring locations are separated based on the frame rate of the camera). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the frame rate information of Dingle in the system of Nagao, in order to ensure that desired data is detected by the camera (see Dingle, paragraphs [0127], [0137], and [0171]).
Response to Arguments
The 112(b) rejections, and the claim objections, are withdrawn based on Applicant’s arguments filed on 4/6/2026.
Regarding the 101 rejections, Applicant argues on pages 7-9 that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the claims are an improvement to periodically moving sensors, which Applicant notes were not taught in the previous cited references. However, such sensors are generic and known in the art, as evidenced by the Nagao reference, which teaches sensors located on buses and trains, which are commonly known to move periodically on predefined routes. Updated 101 rejections are provided above.
Regarding the 103 rejections, the Examiner agrees that the amended claims are not taught by the previously cited references. However, new grounds of rejection, based on Applicant’s amendments, are provided above.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am to 3pm.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571)272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights