DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 June 2026 [hereinafter Response] has been entered , where:
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are amended.
Claims 2, 3, 9, and 15 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-19 are pending.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-19 are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method, which is a process, and thus one of the statutory categories of patentable subject matter. (35 U.S.C. § 101).
However, under Step 2A Prong One, the claim recites the limitations of “fitting a regression solver to the dataset to express the response variable value as a function of the plurality of explanatory variables,” “computing a sample coefficient of multiple determination based on the function,” “computing a kurtosis of a sample of fitted values;” and “comparing a lower confidence bound to a predetermined evaluation criterion.” These activities of “fitting,” “computing,” and “comparing” can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly, are a mental process, (MPEP § 2016.04(a)(2) sub III), which is one of the groupings of abstract ideas. (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)).
Also, as supported by Applicant’s disclosure, the elements of “fitting a regression solver,” “computing a sample coefficient,” “computing a kurtosis” and “comparing a lower confidence” underly mathematical calculations (Specification ¶¶ 0066, 0067, 0118), and accordingly, are a mathematical concept, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub I), which is one of the groupings of abstract ideas. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the claim as a whole is not integrated into a practical application, because the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception include a “computer-implemented method,” a “measurement system,” and a “network,” which are a generic computer component used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim further recites more details or specifics of the additional element of the “measurement system,” in which “one or more special purpose measurement devices,” “including one or more of strength measuring devices, medical devices, imaging and vision devices, detectors, transducers, and sensors,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the additional element.
The claim also recites “transmitting, over a network, a query to a measurement system disposed in the manufacturing environment,” which is a pre-processing, insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Also, that a “measurement system [is] disposed in the manufacturing environment” is a field-of-use limitation, where generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, (MPEP § 2106.05(h)), that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim also recites “in response to the query, automatically generating by the one or more special purpose measurement devices, in an automated flow of the manufacturing environment, a plurality of distribution agnostic measurements of fabricated units, and providing the measurements to a confidence interval procedures engine executing on the measurement system,” “forming from the plurality of distribution agnostic measurements, a dataset comprising a plurality of observations,” and “outputting a one- or two-sided confidence interval for a population coefficient of multiple determination that is valid for both normal and non-normal distributions of the plurality of distribution agnostic measurements.” These are pre- and post-solution insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and data output, (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim recites more details or specifics of the additional element “forming . . . a dataset,” where “wherein each observation comprises a response variable value and a plurality of explanatory variable values,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element.
Also further, the claim recites “based on the comparison, performing a fabrication modification action associated with a reliability of a fabrication process producing the fabricated units, including detecting fabricated units that do not satisfy the predetermined evaluation criterion in the automated flow and suspending the automated flow responsive to the detecting.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “performing a fabrication modification action” is recited at a high-level of generality, as it is not clear within the claim of the manner in which the action results in “suspending,” and accordingly, covers the actions of sending data, a notice, a message, etc., which is not inconsistent with the Applicant’s disclosure. (MPEP § 2111). Thus, the activity of “performing a fabrication modification action“ is a post-processing, insignificant extra-solution activity of transmitting data over a network, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea.
Finally, under Step 2B, the additional elements, taken alone or in combination, do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim includes a “computer-implemented method,” “measurement system,” a “confidence interval procedures engine,” and a “network,” which are a generic computer component used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim further recites more details or specifics of the additional element of the “measurement system,” in which “one or more special purpose measurement devices,” “including one or more of strength measuring devices, medical devices, imaging and vision devices, detectors, transducers, and sensors,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element.
The claim also recites “transmitting, over a network, a query to a measurement system disposed in the manufacturing environment,” which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting data over a network, (MPEP § 2106.05(d) sub II.i), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Also, that a “measurement system [is] disposed in the manufacturing environment” is a field-of-use limitation, where generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, (MPEP § 2106.05(h)), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim also recites The claim also recites “in response to the query, automatically generating by the one or more special purpose measurement devices, in an automated flow of the manufacturing environment, a plurality of distribution agnostic measurements of fabricated units, and providing the measurements to a confidence interval procedures engine executing on the measurement system,” “forming from the plurality of distribution agnostic measurements, a dataset comprising a plurality of observations,” and “outputting a one- or two-sided confidence interval for a population coefficient of multiple determination that is valid for both normal and non-normal distributions of the plurality of distribution agnostic measurements.” The activities of “automatically generating,” and “forming . . . a dataset” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities of receiving data over a network, (MPEP § 2016.05(d) sub II.i), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, these activities are in relation to the use of the generic computer components (special purpose measurement devices, confidence interval procedures engine, computer-implemented) to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The activity of “outputting a one- or two-sided confidence interval,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information in memory, (MPEP § 2106.05(d) sub II.iv), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim recites more details or specifics of the additional element “forming . . . a dataset,” “wherein each observation comprises a response variable value and a plurality of explanatory variable values,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element.
Also further, the claim recites “based on the comparison, performing a fabrication modification action associated with a reliability of a fabrication process producing the fabricated units, including detecting fabricated units that do not satisfy the predetermined evaluation criterion in the automated flow and suspending the automated flow responsive to the detecting.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “performing a fabrication modification action” is recited at a high-level of generality, as it is not clear within the claim of the manner in which the action results in “suspending,” and accordingly, covers the actions of sending data, a notice, a message, etc., which is not inconsistent with the Applicant’s disclosure. (MPEP § 2111). Thus, the activity of “performing a fabrication modification action“ is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting data over a network, (MPEP § 2106.05(d) sub II.i), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 8 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which is a product, and thus one of the statutory categories of patentable subject matter. (35 U.S.C. § 101).
However, under Step 2A Prong One, the claim recites the limitations of “fit . . . a regression solver to the dataset to express the response variable value as a function of the plurality of explanatory variables,” “compute a sample coefficient of multiple determination based on the function,” “compute a kurtosis of a sample of fitted values” and “compare a lower confidence bound to a predetermined evaluation criterion.” These activities of “fit,” “compute,” and “compare” can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly, are a mental process, (MPEP § 2016.04(a)(2) sub III), which is one of the groupings of abstract ideas. (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)).
Also, as supported by Applicant’s disclosure, the elements of “fit a regression solver,” “compute a sample coefficient,” “compute a kurtosis” and “compare a lower confidence” underly mathematical calculations (Specification ¶¶ 0066, 0067, 0118), and accordingly, are a mathematical concept, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub I), which is one of the groupings of abstract ideas. Thus, claim 8 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the claim as a whole is not integrated into a practical application, because the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception include a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” “computer,” a “network,” and a “measurement system,” which are a generic computer component used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim further recites more details or specifics of the additional element of the “measurement system,” in which “one or more special purpose measurement devices,” “including one or more of strength measuring devices, medical devices, imaging and vision devices, detectors, transducers, and sensors,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element.
The claim also recites “transmit, over a network, a query to a measurement system disposed in the manufacturing environment,” which is a pre-processing, insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data, (MPEP § 2106.05(g)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Also, that a “measurement system [is] disposed in the manufacturing environment” is a field-of-use limitation, where generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, (MPEP § 2106.05(h)), that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim also recites “in response to the query, automatically generate by the one or more special purpose measurement devices, in an automated flow of the manufacturing environment, a plurality of distribution agnostic measurements of fabricated units, and providing the measurements to a confidence interval procedures engine executing on the measurement system,” “form from the plurality of distribution agnostic measurements, a dataset comprising a plurality of observations,” and “output a one- or two-sided confidence interval for a population coefficient of multiple determination that is valid for both normal and non-normal distributions of the plurality of distribution agnostic measurements.” These are pre- and post-solution insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and data output, (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim recites more details or specifics of the additional element “form a dataset,” where “wherein each observation comprises a response variable value and a plurality of explanatory variable values,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element.
Also further, the claim recites “based on the comparison, perform a fabrication modification action associated with a reliability of a fabrication process producing the fabricated units, including detecting fabricated units that do not satisfy the predetermined evaluation criterion in the automated flow and suspending the automated flow responsive to the detecting.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “performing a fabrication modification action” is recited at a high-level of generality, as it is not clear within the claim of the manner in which the action results in “suspending,” and accordingly, covers the actions of sending data, a notice, a message, etc., which is not inconsistent with the Applicant’s disclosure. (MPEP § 2111). Thus, the activity of “performing a fabrication modification action“ is a post-processing, insignificant extra-solution activity of transmitting data over a network, (MPEP § 2106.05(g)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 8 is directed to the abstract idea.
Finally, under Step 2B, the additional elements, taken alone or in combination, do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim includes a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” “computer,” a “network,” and a “measurement system,” which are a generic computer component used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim further recites more details or specifics of the additional element of the “confidence interval procedures engine,” where “the confidence interval procedures engine being a special purpose fabrication platform disposed in the measurement system,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element.
The claim also recites “transmit, over a network, a query to a measurement system disposed in the manufacturing environment,” which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting data over a network, (MPEP § 2106.05(d) sub II.i), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Also, that a “measurement system [is] disposed in the manufacturing environment” is a field-of-use limitation, where generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, (MPEP § 2106.05(h)), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim also recites “in response to the query, automatically generate by the one or more special purpose measurement devices, in an automated flow of the manufacturing environment, a plurality of distribution agnostic measurements of fabricated units, and provide the measurements to a confidence interval procedures engine executing on the measurement system,” and “form from the plurality of distribution agnostic measurements, a dataset comprising a plurality of observations,” and “output a one- or two-sided confidence interval for a population coefficient of multiple determination that is valid for both normal and non-normal distributions of the plurality of distribution agnostic measurements.” The activities of “generate . . . a plurality of distribution agnostic measurements . . . and provide,” and form . . . a dataset” are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving data over a network, (MPEP § 2016.05(d) sub II.i), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The activity of “output a one- or two-sided confidence interval,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information in memory, (MPEP § 2106.05(d) sub II.iv), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim recites more details or specifics of the additional element “form . . . a dataset,” where “wherein each observation comprises a response variable value and a plurality of explanatory variable values,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element.
Also further, the claim recites “based on the comparison, performing a fabrication modification action associated with a reliability of a fabrication process producing the fabricated units, including detecting fabricated units that do not satisfy the predetermined evaluation criterion in the automated flow and suspending the automated flow responsive to the detecting.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “performing a fabrication modification action” is recited at a high-level of generality, as it is not clear within the claim of the manner in which the action results in “suspending,” and accordingly, covers the actions of sending data, a notice, a message, etc., which is not inconsistent with the Applicant’s disclosure. (MPEP § 2111). Thus, the activity of “performing a fabrication modification action“ is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting data over a network, (MPEP § 2106.05(d) sub II.i), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 8 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 14 recites a computer system, which is a product, and thus one of the statutory categories of patentable subject matter. (35 U.S.C. § 101).
However, under Step 2A Prong One, the claim recites the limitations of “fit . . . a regression solver to the dataset to express the response variable value as a function of the plurality of explanatory variables,” “compute a sample coefficient of multiple determination based on the function,” and
“compute a kurtosis of a sample of fitted values,” and “compare a lower confidence bound to a predetermined evaluation criteria.” These activities of “fit,” “compute,” and “compare” can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly, are a mental process, (MPEP § 2016.04(a)(2) sub III), which is one of the groupings of abstract ideas. (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)). Also, as supported by Applicant’s disclosure, the elements of “fit a regression solver,” “compute a sample coefficient,” “compute a kurtosis” and “compare a lower confidence” underly mathematical calculations (Specification ¶¶ 0066, 0067, 0118), and accordingly, are a mathematical concept, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub I), which is one of the groupings of abstract ideas. Thus, claim 14 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the claim as a whole is not integrated into a practical application, because the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception include a “processor,” a “memory storing instructions that , when executed by the processor, configure the computer system,” “measurement system,” a “confidence interval procedures engine,” and a “network,” which are generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim further recites more details or specifics of the additional element of the “measurement system,” in which “one or more special purpose measurement devices,” “including one or more of strength measuring devices, medical devices, imaging and vision devices, detectors, transducers, and sensors,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element.
The claim also recites “transmit, over a network, a query to a measurement system disposed in the manufacturing environment,” which is a pre-processing, insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data, (MPEP § 2106.05(g)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Also, that a “measurement system [is] disposed in the manufacturing environment” is a field-of-use limitation, where generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, (MPEP § 2106.05(h)), that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim also recites “in response to the query, automatically generate by the one or more special purpose measurement devices, in an automated flow of the manufacturing environment, a plurality of distribution agnostic measurements of fabricated units, and provide the measurements to a confidence interval procedures engine executing on the measurement system,” “form from the plurality of distribution agnostic measurements, a dataset comprising a plurality of observations,” and “output a one- or two-sided confidence interval for a population coefficient of multiple determination that is valid for both normal and non-normal distributions of the plurality of distribution agnostic measurements.” These are pre- and post-solution insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and data output, (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim recites more details or specifics of the additional element “form a dataset,” where “wherein each observation comprises a response variable value and a plurality of explanatory variable values,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element.
Also further, the claim recites “based on the comparison, perform a fabrication modification action associated with a reliability of a fabrication process producing the fabricated units, including detecting fabricated units that do not satisfy the predetermined evaluation criterion in the automated flow and suspending the automated flow responsive to the detecting.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “performing a fabrication modification action” is recited at a high-level of generality, as it is not clear within the claim of the manner in which the action results in “suspending,” and accordingly, covers the actions of sending data, a notice, a message, etc., which is not inconsistent with the Applicant’s disclosure. (MPEP § 2111). Thus, the activity of “performing a fabrication modification action“ is a post-processing, insignificant extra-solution activity of transmitting data over a network, (MPEP § 2106.05(g)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 14 is directed to the abstract idea.
Finally, under Step 2B, the additional elements, taken alone or in combination, do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim includes a “processor,” a “memory storing instructions that , when executed by the processor, configure the computer system,” “measurement system,” a “confidence interval procedures engine,” and a “network,” which are generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim further recites more details or specifics of the additional element of the “confidence interval procedures engine,” where “the confidence interval procedures engine being a special purpose fabrication platform disposed in the measurement system,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element.
The claim also recites “form from the plurality of distribution agnostic measurements, a dataset comprising a plurality of observations,” and “output a one- or two-sided confidence interval for a population coefficient of multiple determination.” The activity of “form . . . a dataset” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving data over a network, (MPEP § 2016.05(d) sub II.i), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The activity of “output a one- or two-sided confidence interval,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information in memory, (MPEP § 2106.05(d) sub II.iv), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim also recites “transmit, over a network, a query to a measurement system disposed in the manufacturing environment,” which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting data over a network, (MPEP § 2106.05(d) sub II.i), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Also, that a “measurement system [is] disposed in the manufacturing environment” is a field-of-use limitation, where generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, (MPEP § 2106.05(h)), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim also recites “in response to the query, automatically generate by the one or more special purpose measurement devices, in an automated flow of the manufacturing environment, a plurality of distribution agnostic measurements of fabricated units, and provide the measurements to a confidence interval procedures engine executing on the measurement system,” and “form . . . a dataset,” where “wherein each observation comprises a response variable value and a plurality of explanatory variable values,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element.
Also further, the claim recites “based on the comparison, performing a fabrication modification action associated with a reliability of a fabrication process producing the fabricated units, including detecting fabricated units that do not satisfy the predetermined evaluation criterion in the automated flow and suspending the automated flow responsive to the detecting.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “performing a fabrication modification action” is recited at a high-level of generality, as it is not clear within the claim of the manner in which the action results in “suspending,” and accordingly, covers the actions of sending data, a notice, a message, etc., which is not inconsistent with the Applicant’s disclosure. (MPEP § 2111). Thus, the activity of “performing a fabrication modification action“ is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting data over a network, (MPEP § 2106.05(d) sub II.i), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 14 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 4 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. Claim 10 depends directly or indirectly from claim 8. Claim 16 depends directly or indirectly from claim 14. The claims recite more details or specifics to the abstract idea of “compute a kurtosis,” where (claims 4, 10, and 16: “wherein the kurtosis of the sample of fitted values is computed using
PNG
media_image1.png
60
357
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where the sample of fitted values are
w
i
=
x
i
τ
β
^
,
i
=
1
,
.
.
.
n
,
w
-
is the sample mean, and
w
~
is the sample median”), and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea. The abstract idea of these claims are not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor do they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), because the claims recite no more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 4, 10, and 16 are subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 5 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. Claim 11 depends directly or indirectly from claim 8. Claim 17 depends directly or indirectly from claim 14. The claims recite “compute an approximate variance or first degrees of freedom for an F distribution.” The activity of “output . . . by compute” can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly, are a mental process, (MPEP § 2016.04(a)(2) sub III), which is one of the groupings of abstract ideas. (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)). Also, as supported by Applicant’s disclosure, the elements of “output . . . by compute an approximate variance or first degrees of freedom for an F distribution” underly mathematical calculations (Specification ¶¶ 0092, 0107), and accordingly, are a mathematical concept, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub I), which is one of the groupings of abstract ideas. Thus, claims 5, 11, and 17 recite an abstract idea. Also, the claims recite more details or specifics to the additional element of “output a one- or two-sided confidence interval,” where (claims 5, 11, and 17: “outputting the one- or two-sided confidence interval by computing, an approximate variance or first degrees of freedom for an F distribution based on the computed kurtosis”), and accordingly, are merely more specific to the additional element. The abstract idea of these claims are not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor do they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), because the claims recite no more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 5, 11, and 17 are subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 6 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. Claim 12 depends directly or indirectly from claim 8. Claim 18 depends directly or indirectly from claim 14. The claims recite more details or specifics to the abstract idea of “outputting the one- or two-sided confidence interval by computing” where (claims 6, 12, and 18: wherein the approximate variance is computed using
PNG
media_image2.png
57
507
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where
PNG
media_image3.png
96
181
media_image3.png
Greyscale
“) and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea. The abstract idea of these claims are not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor do they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), because the claims recite no more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 6, 12, and 18 are subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 7 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. Claim 13 depends directly or indirectly from claim 8. Claim 19 depends directly or indirectly from claim 14. The claims recite more details or specifics to the abstract idea of “outputting the one- or two-sided confidence interval by computing” where (claims 7, 13, and 19: wherein the first degrees of freedom for the F distribution are computed and is computed using
PNG
media_image4.png
66
467
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where
PNG
media_image5.png
42
245
media_image5.png
Greyscale
“) and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea. The abstract idea of these claims are not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor do they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), because the claims recite no more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 7, 13, and 19 are subject-matter ineligible.
Response to Arguments
5. Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, and responds below accordingly.
35 U.S.C. § 101
6. Under Step 2A Prong Two, Applicant submits that “(1) The claims reflect an improvement to a technical field the reliability of automated physical measurement in manufacturing.” (Response at p. 11 (citing Specification ¶ 0023)).
Applicant also submits that “(2) Importantly, the claim also improves the underlying technology: measurement and fabrication-process evaluation, which is the strongest indicium of integration (MPEP § 2106.05(a)).” (Response at p. 13 (citing Specification ¶¶ 0023, 0024, 0064)).
Examiner’s Response:
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the rejection identifies any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea); and evaluate the integration of the judicial exception into a practical application by explaining that the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application using the considerations set forth in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)-(h).
“Integration” may be based on the improvements in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to any other technology or technical field. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). The evaluation requires, [i]n sum, that (1) the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Next, (2) if the specification sets forth such an improvement, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement.
By way of example to Desjardins, the MPEP provides under Step 2A Prong Two that “the [Desjardins] specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of ‘catastrophic forgetting’ encountered in continual learning systems. Importantly, the [appeals review panel (ARP)] evaluated the claims as a whole in discerning at least the limitation ‘adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task’ reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification. Accordingly, the claims as a whole integrated what would otherwise be a judicial exception instead into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and therefore the claims were deemed to be outside any specific, enumerated judicial exception (Step 2A: NO).” (MPEP § 2106.04(d) sub III; see “Advance Notice of Change to the MPEP in light of Ex Parte Desjardins” (05 December 2025) at p. 2)).
The Applicant’s disclosure, in general, presents adjusted F-approximation and adjusted normal-approximation versions, with median-based kurtosis estimates performing better in examples. The instant claims, however, do not appear to provide sufficient details to reflect such disclosed improvements. (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)).
Generally, a claim that integrates an abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea will apply, rely on, or use the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize or preempt the abstract idea.
For example, the claims recite because the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception include a “computer-implemented method,” “measurement system,” a “confidence interval procedures engine,” and a “plurality of sensors,” which are generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, as described above in detail.
7. Under Step 2B, Applicant submits that “a The Examiner's assertion that ‘forming a dataset’ and ‘outputting a confidence interval’ are routine addresses only generic sub-steps viewed in isolation; it does not address, and is not supported by any evidence as to, the ordered combination of generating distribution-agnostic physical measurements and computing therefrom a kurtosis-based, distribution-agnostic confidence interval for the population coefficient of multiple determination.” (Response at p. 15).
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claims recite additional elements are described at a high-level of generality, and do not describe how the recited features are accomplished in the claim.
For example, the additional elements include a “computer-implemented method,” “measurement system,” a “confidence interval procedures engine,” and a “plurality of sensors,” which are a generic computer component used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Also, the additional elements of forming . . . a dataset” and “outputting a one-or-two-sided confidence interval” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, as described above in detail.
Accordingly, the claims are subject-matter ineligible.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(US Published Application 20220179971 to Ding) teaches randomly generated set of intervals and determine which of intervals the datum is in. The interval that the datum is in and the anchor points of the intervals for the datum are saved for use by an untrusted data collector. Because the intervals are randomly generated, the data collector is able to perform the same processes on the interval data that the data collector determining relationships represented by the data, determining distributions of the data, and using the data to train learning algorithms, for example.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KEVIN L. SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-5964. Normally, the Examiner is available on Monday-Thursday 0730-1730.
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, KAKALI CHAKI can be reached on 571-272-3719. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/K.L.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/KAKALI CHAKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights