DETAILED ACTION
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.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to two of the four statutory classes, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “updating a gain matrix;
updating, using the gain matrix, the sensor data, and a second parameter estimate
received from the second sensor device, a first parameter estimate, the first parameter
estimate comprising an estimate of a parameter of a model representing the first sensor
device, the updating resulting in an updated first parameter estimate, updating, using the gain matrix, an estimation error covariance matrix and a cross-variance matrix; and adjusting, using the updated first parameter estimate, second sensor data measured by the first sensor device,” are abstract idea, as they are directed to a combination of mental process and usage of mathematical concept. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “measuring, using a first sensor device in a network of sensor devices, sensor data,” “wherein the second sensor device comprises a geographically closest device to the first sensor device,” “wherein the second sensor device comprises a sensor device having a direct communication connection to the first sensor device,” “new sensor data measured by the first sensor,”
but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, is merely directed to insignificant data collection activity. The claims also recite “computer system comprising a processor and computer storage media,” but said limitation is merely directed to general-purpose computer to implement the abstract idea. The claims do not improve the functioning of any machines or computer, and do not improve other technology. At most, the claims are an improvement in the abstract idea of adjusting sensor data. However, improved or new abstract idea is still an abstract idea, and not eligible under the 101. In summary, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “measuring, using a first sensor device in a network of sensor devices, sensor data,” “wherein the second sensor device comprises a geographically closest device to the first sensor device,” “wherein the second sensor device comprises a sensor device having a direct communication connection to the first sensor device,” “new sensor data measured by the first sensor,”
but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, is merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, that are well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims also recite “computer system comprising a processor and computer storage media,” but said limitation is merely directed to general-purpose computer to implement the abstract idea, that are also well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Note: The specification describes the computer readable storage medium as not to be construed as transitory signals
Allowable Subject Matter
The independent claims 1, 7 and 15 (and their dependent claims) would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 1, 7 and 15. The prior arts do not teach or suggest a combination, including updating a gain matrix; updating, using the gain matrix, the sensor data, and a second parameter estimate received from the second sensor device, a first parameter estimate, the first parameter estimate comprising an estimate of a parameter of a model representing the first sensor device, the updating resulting in an updated first parameter estimate; updating, using the gain matrix, an estimation error covariance matrix and a cross-variance matrix; and adjusting, using the updated first parameter estimate, second sensor data measured by the first sensor device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ahuja et al., US-PGPUB 2013/0124127
Jayabalan et al., US-PGPUB 2007/0219749
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857