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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed on October 16, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as the claimed invention being directed to an abstract idea have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons noted below. However, the rejection of claims 1, 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of Ara et al. (U.S. PAP 2009/0228318, hereon Ara) and Sakai et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,766,115, hereon Sakai) has been withdrawn in view of the amendment and argument presented by the Applicant(s). The Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 2, 6 and 9 by the amendment. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, and 10-11 are pending in the application.
Explanation of Rejection
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §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.
In reference to claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, and 10-11: the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The requirement for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes requires first, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. §101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea “something more” or "significantly more” that embodies an “inventive concept.”
In the instant case, claim 1 is representative and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in bold:
A reliability determination system, comprising:
one or more pressure or motion sensors configured to measure collect measurement data corresponding to a movement of a center of gravity of an operator who inputs data; and
one or more processors configured to:
calculate, using the measurement data, a measurement value of a center-of-gravity sway area per unit time at a time of inputting data;
determine a reliability of input data based on a comparison between the measurement value of a center-of-gravity sway area per unit time and a reference value; and
in response to determining that the reliability of a particular input data item is below a predetermined threshold, generate an electronic alert that specifies the particular input data item, and transmit, via a network, the electronic alert to a terminal of an evaluator to prompt a review and verification of the particular input data item.
Step 2A:
Prong I: The claim recites the steps of “collect measurement data corresponding to a movement of a center of gravity of an operator who inputs data, calculate, using the measurement data, a measurement value of a center-of-gravity sway area per unit time at a time of inputting data, determine a reliability of input data based on a comparison between the measurement value of a center-of-gravity sway area per unit time and a reference value and determining that the reliability of a particular input data item is below a predetermined threshold, generate an electronic alert that specifies the particular input data item, determining that the reliability of a particular input data item is below a predetermined threshold, generate …[an] alert that specifies the particular input data item, and prompt a review and verification of the particular input data item.” Therefore, the recited method falls in the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts at Prong 1 of the §101 analysis.
Prong II:
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis because the claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites the method comprising the additional element steps of "one or more pressure or motion sensors, and one or more processors, configured to calculate using the measurement data, a measurement value of a center of gravity sway area per unit time at the time of the inputting data”. However, the first is considered to be merely a data gathering step recited at a high level of generality, and the second is considered a generic processor component that is invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
In general, the overall concept could be an observation or analysis carried out through a thought process, and the last step of alerting (as simple as telling the end user) the discrepancy of some kind or a difference in value be directed to an evaluator output to prompt a review and verification, perhaps by a person of ordinary skill in the art, to make a determination about a particular input data item. Further, “transmitting, via a network, the electronics alert to a terminal of an evaluator” is a generic, and routine data transmission scheme and would be considered insignificant extra solution activity.
The courts have found that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or make the claim qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to manipulating data: namely “determine a reliability of input data using a result of the measurement of the movement of the center of gravity sway area per unit time and a reference value”. The claim does not recite any particular real-world actions that are taken as a result of the notification that is output. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Step 2B:
Finally, at Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Prong 2. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claims 5 and 7 are analogous to claim 1, except they are directed to a method and device.
Dependent claim 3: the instant claim is directed to the evaluation of the center of gravity of the individual based on a threshold which is insignificant extra solution activity and does not change the §101 analysis.
Dependent claim 4: the instant claim is directed to the evaluation of the center of gravity of the individual based on a threshold which is insignificant extra solution activity and does not change the §101 analysis.
Dependent claim 8: the instant claim is analogous to claim 7 of the device claim with a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute functions of each unit of the determination device, and does not change the §101 analysis.
Dependent claim 10: the instant claim is directed to the evaluation of the center of gravity of the individual based on a threshold which is insignificant extra solution activity and does not change the §101 analysis.
Dependent claim 11: the instant claim is directed to the evaluation of the center of gravity of the individual based on a threshold which is insignificant extra solution activity and does not change the §101 analysis.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed on October 16, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as the claimed invention being directed to an abstract idea have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons noted above and further explained below.
Applicant(s) argued that “the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea, in particular under step 2A, prong 2 of eligibility analysis…”. See argument, page 6, last paragraph).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following two reasons. The added limitations include “[having] one or more pressure or motion sensors configured to collect measurement data corresponding to a movement of a center of gravity” and “generate electronic alert that specifies the particular input data item and transmit, via a network, the electronic alert to a terminal of an evaluator to prompt a review and verification of the particular input data item” (see portion of claim 1 as amended).
The fist portion of the amendment is directed to a data gathering concept at a highest level of generality which is using the one or more pressure and motion sensors to collect measurement data corresponding to a movement of a center of gravity of the individual who enters data into a system. Further, the second significant amendment includes generating an electronic alert when [there is a difference of two values prompting] a review and verification [by ordinary skill in the art] of the particular input data item” which would amount to be a human thought process and/or judgement of some kind.
Applicant(s) argued that in Example 46 “an analysis of an animal's behavior is used to "automatically send a control signal to the feed dispenser". In the present invention, the analysis of the operator's center of gravity is used to "generate an electronic alert...and transmit...the electronic alert to a terminal of an evaluator". In both cases, the analysis is integrated into a practical application that controls a downstream action to achieve a technical improvement. This improvement is more than a mere application of an abstract idea; it provides a tangible technological benefit and meets the criteria under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis” (see Applicant(s) argument, page 8, second paragraph).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reason, in the instant application, two values are compared, sensor data and a threshold value with respect to a processed value, and sent to an end user to evaluate (or review and verification), which is a human thought process would be different from example 46, which requires “automatically send a control signal to the feed dispenser.”
Further, Applicant(s) argued that in “Example 47 (Claim 3) from the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, which was found eligible. There, a claim recited using an ANN to detect anomalies in network traffic (an abstract idea), but then integrated that idea into a practical application by taking specific remedial actions: "detecting a source address...dropping the one or more malicious network packets...and blocking future traffic” (see argument, pages 8-9, last and first paragraph).
Again, in the instant application, two values are compared, sensor data and a threshold value with respect to a processed value, and sent to an end user to evaluate (or review and verification), which is a human thought process would be different from example 47, which requires “using an ANN to detect anomalies in network traffic (an abstract idea), but then integrated that idea into a practical application by taking specific remedial actions: "detecting a source address...dropping the one or more malicious network packets...and blocking future traffic.”
Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process (review and verification by an ordinary skill in the art) or math (the difference between two values) itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used. The claim as whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claimed invention does not improve the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sillay et al. (U.S. Patent 9,414,776) discloses systems and methods for health data collection and sharing relate to the technical field of objective medical health data collection utilizing mobile telecommunications apparatus or an alternative device, a health-linked database hierarchy, social networking for those diagnosed with disease, a permission system for health-based data sharing and linked health data exchange network for access by the diagnosed, medical practitioners, insurance carriers, medical researchers and others having access permission.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 5:00 pm.
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 M 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 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.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857