DETAILED ACTION
Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, and 13-17 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/05/2025 have been received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
4. The drawings submitted on 04/17/2023 are in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.81 and 37 CFR § 1.83 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A data measurement system comprising:
a plurality of measurement apparatuses including a first apparatus and a second apparatus;
a transmitter that transmits a first signal to the plurality of measurement apparatuses; and
a data processing apparatus that processes data obtained from the plurality of measurement apparatuses, wherein each of the plurality of measurement apparatuses obtains measurement data before and after a time when the first signal was received, and
stores the first signal independently of the obtained measurement data or as being superimposed on the obtained measurement data,
the data processing apparatus obtains from each of the plurality of measurement apparatuses, measurement data measured during a period between a start signal corresponding to the first signal transmitted at first time and an end signal corresponding to the first signal transmitted at second time later than the first time,
temporally aligns start signals in the obtained data with each other and aligns end signals in the obtained data with each other such that a first interval from the start signal to the end signal in the first apparatus matches a second interval from the start signal to the end signal in the second apparatus, and
presents the measurement data from the plurality of measurement apparatuses to a user.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 8 and 15.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a process claim. Likewise, claim 8 is a system claim and claim 15 a non-transitory computer readable medium claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 is found to include at least one judicial exception, that being a mental process and/or mathematical process. This can be seen in the claim limitation of a data processing apparatus that processes data obtained from the plurality of measurement apparatuses, wherein each of the plurality of measurement apparatuses obtains measurement data before and after a time when the first signal was received, temporally aligns start signals in the obtained data with each other and aligns end signals in the obtained data with each other such that a first interval from the start signal to the end signal in the first apparatus matches a second interval from the start signal to the end signal in the second apparatus, which is the judicial exception of a mental process and/or a mathematical concept because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, and/or judgements capable of being performed mentally.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 16.
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: a plurality of measurement apparatuses including a first apparatus and a second apparatus; a transmitter that transmits a first signal to the plurality of measurement apparatuses; and the data processing apparatus obtains from each of the plurality of measurement apparatuses, measurement data measured during a period between a start signal corresponding to the first signal transmitted at first time and an end signal corresponding to the first signal transmitted at second time later than the first time,.” (claims 1 and 16) which are merely data gathering steps recited at a high level of generality and therefore merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”. The claim also recites “stores the first signal independently of the obtained measurement data or as being superimposed on the obtained measurement data and presents the measurement data from the plurality of measurement apparatuses to a user” (claims 1 and 16) however these limitations are considered insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. storing and output, are found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document). The claim further recites “data processing apparatus” which is recited at a high level of generality, and merely amounts to the use of computer technology as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or the use of “data processing apparatus” to perform the functions, that are otherwise abstract, is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract to a particular field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
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 system. For instance, nothing is done with the output with the measurement data that is presented to the user.
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 insignificant extra-solution activity (claims 1 and 16). 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 MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
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, as well as claim 16, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, 2-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15 and 17, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements therefore these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for independent claims 1 and 16.
See Supreme court decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by He et al. US PAT # 8,981,942.
With regards to claims 1 and 16, He et al. US PAT # 8,981,942 teaches data measurement system and method comprising:
a plurality of measurement apparatuses including a first apparatus and a second apparatus;(Col. 1, lines 44-45) (Col. 7, lines 35-60)
a transmitter that transmits a first signal to the plurality of measurement apparatuses; (Col. 8, lines 32-34)and
a data processing apparatus that processes data obtained from the plurality of measurement apparatuses, wherein each of the plurality of measurement apparatuses obtains measurement data before and after a time when the first signal was received, (Col. 1, lines 44-45)(figure 16) and
stores the first signal independently of the obtained measurement data or as being superimposed on the obtained measurement data, (Col. 1, lines 52-54)
the data processing apparatus obtains from each of the plurality of measurement apparatuses, measurement data measured during a period between a start signal corresponding to the first signal transmitted at first time and an end signal corresponding to the first signal transmitted at second time later than the first time, (Col. 2, lines 1-8)
temporally aligns start signals in the obtained data with each other and aligns end signals in the obtained data with each other such that a first interval from the start signal to the end signal in the first apparatus matches a second interval from the start signal to the end signal in the second apparatus, (various criteria are detected at the same time and weighted to determine driver drowsiness; Figure 6)and
presents the measurement data from the plurality of measurement apparatuses to a user. (Col. 2, lines 10-15)
With regards to claim 2, He et al. US PAT # 8,981,942 teaches a display on which the measurement data from the plurality of measurement apparatuses is shown to the user. (312; figure 3)
With regards to claim 3, He et al. US PAT # 8,981,942 teaches the first interval is different from the second interval, the data processing apparatus corrects the measurement data from the second apparatus such that the second interval is equal to the first interval. (threshold; figure 5B)
With regards to claim 4, He et al. US PAT # 8,981,942 teaches the transmitter is included in any of the plurality of measurement apparatuses or in the data processing apparatus. (Col. 8, lines 30-35)
With regards to claim 6, He et al. US PAT # 8,981,942 teaches each of the plurality of measurement apparatuses includes any sensor of an environmental sensor that measures environmental information, a biological sensor that measures biological information, and an image sensor for imaging. (Col. 7, lines 35-60)
With regards to claim 7, He et al. US PAT # 8,981,942 teaches each of the plurality of measurement apparatuses includes a storage device where the measurement data measured thereby is stored, and performs means for transmission of a signal from the sensor to the storage device through a wire. (Col. 22, lines 56-59)
With regards to claim 8, He et al. US PAT # 8,981,942 teaches each of the plurality of measurement apparatuses, a sampling rate of the first signal is equal to or higher than a sampling rate of the measurement data. (Col. 10, lines 24-27)
With regards to claim 10, He et al. US PAT # 8,981,942 teaches the first signal is stored as being integrated with the measurement data. (Col. 9, lines 24-30)
With regards to claim 11, He et al. US PAT # 8,981,942 teaches at least one receiver that transmits a second signal to a corresponding measurement apparatus among the plurality of measurement apparatuses in response to reception of the first signal transmitted from the transmitter, wherein the start signal is the second signal corresponding to the first signal transmitted at the first time, and the end signal is the second signal corresponding to the first signal transmitted at the second time. (Col. 14-15, lines 62-67 & 1-19)
With regards to claim 13, He et al. US PAT # 8,981,942 teaches a transmitter used in the data measurement system according to claim 1. (Col. 8, lines 33-34)
With regards to claim 14, He et al. US PAT # 8,981,942 teaches receiver used in the data measurement system according to claim 11. (Col. 8, lines 32-34)
With regards to claim 15, He et al. US PAT # 8,981,942 teaches a data processing apparatus used in the data measurement system according to claim 1. (162; figure 1)
With regards to claim 17, He et al. US PAT # 8,981,942 teaches each of the plurality of measurement apparatuses obtains measurement data before and after a time when the second signal was received. (Col. 10, lines 24-27)
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed 11/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
11. Applicant is reminded that during patent examination, the pending claims must be "given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
12. While the meaning of claims of issued patents are interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allowed. This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless applicant has provided a clear definition in the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
13. In this instance applicant argues that the cross reference to related applications section is not required. Applicant is correct that the section is not required, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant goes on to argue that the claims are eligible in light of USC 101. Specifically, applicant states that the claims are directed to a patent eligible technical solution to a technical problem i.e. cameras and sensors in a system aren’t synchronized, so applicant uses a centralized controller to synchronize all the devices in the system. Applicant, also argues that the claims as a whole integrate the judicial exception in to a practical application. Applicant cites the claims and then refers the improvement being the synchronization of the measurement data received from multiple sources. Applicant goes on to cite numerous patent eligible subject matter examples and indicates that they also integrate the abstract idea into practical applications and provide a clear improvement to a technical field.
First, the generic language of the claim should be noted as the claims recite a data measurement system, a plurality of measurement apparatus, generic data, signals etc. These components maybe used in a vast array of fields and there is nothing specific in the claim language. Applicant states that the claims are used to synchronize multiple sources, but the data is merely presented to a user and nothing is done with the data. Therefore, it is unclear what practical application the abstract idea is integrated to. Further, the generic nature of the claims makes it difficult to discern which particular technical field is being improved. The claims could read on a printout of a numerous data signals being superimposed on each other and presented to a user. The claims are mostly direct to data processing that maybe performed by a human using mental process. With regards to the subject matter eligibility examples, applicant indicates that they are similar without elaborating. It’s unclear how they could be similar to so many examples as they are eligible for different reasons. It is requested that applicant cite the example that has a similar fact pattern and explain how the claims are analogous.
Regarding the rejections under USC 102, applicant argues that He fails to
a transmitter that transmits a first signal to the plurality of measurement apparatuses; (Col. 8, lines 32-34)and a data processing apparatus that processes data obtained from the plurality of measurement apparatuses, (Col. 1, lines 44-45)(figure 16) the data processing apparatus obtains from each of the plurality of measurement apparatuses, measurement data measured during a period between a start signal corresponding to the first signal transmitted at first time and an end signal corresponding to the first signal transmitted at second time later than the first time, (Col. 2, lines 1-8) transmitting, by the transmitter, a first signal to the plurality of measurement apparatuses (Col. 8, lines 32-34) and obtaining, by each of the plurality of measurement apparatuses, measurement data before and after a time when the first signal was received(Col. 1, lines 44-45)(figure 16)a data processing apparatus that processes data obtained from the plurality of measurement apparatuses, wherein each of the plurality of measurement apparatuses obtains measurement data before and after a time when the first signal was received, (Col. 1, lines 44-45)(figure 16) Applicant goes on to argue that He is not related to a data measurement system as described in the present application for temporally aligning and displaying signals form a plurality of measurement apparatuses and the technical field is totally different. The technical field is irrelevant if the claims read on the prior art. With regards to the data synchronization, He is determining driver impairment in real-time. As the impairment uses various data signals(702,704,706,708; figure 7) simultaneously to determine if the driver is impaired the signals need to be synchronized.
For the reasons stated above, the rejections in view of USC 101 and USC102 have been deemed proper and been maintained.
Conclusion
14. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
15. 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.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA S BHAT whose telephone number is (571)272-2270. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am-6pm.
17. 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.
18. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
19. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ADITYA S BHAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 February 12, 2026