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 .
2. Applicant’s submission filed 25 November 2025 [hereinafter Response] has been entered , where:
Claims 1, 6-8, 12-15, 18, and 19 are amended.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 1-19 are rejected.
Drawings
3. The objection to the drawings as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description is WITHDRAWN in view of the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
4. The objection to claims 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, and 19 due to informalities is WITHDRAWN in view of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
5. The rejection to claims 6, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention is WITHDRAWN in view of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-19 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 “[(c)]1 fitting a regression solver to the dataset to express the response variable value as a function of the plurality of explanatory variables,” “[(d)] computing a sample coefficient of multiple determination based on the function,” and “[(d)] computing a kurtosis of a sample of fitted values”. These activities of “[(c)] fitting,” “[(d)] computing,” and “[(e)] 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 “[(c)] fitting a regression solver,” “[(d)] computing a sample coefficient,” and “[(e)] computing a kurtosis” 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,” “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 serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim further recites more details or specifics of the additional element of the “confidence interval procedures engine,” where “[(a.1)] 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 “[(b)] forming from the plurality of distribution agnostic measurements, a dataset comprising a plurality of observations,” and “[(f)] outputting a one- or two-sided confidence interval for a population coefficient of multiple determination.” 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 also recites “[(a)] automatically operating . . . disposed in the manufacturing environment to generate, from one or more sensors, in an automated flow of the manufacturing environment, which 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 recites more details or specifics of the additional element “[(b)] forming . . . a dataset,” where “[(b.1)] 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. The claim also receives more details or specifics of the “plurality of sensors,” wherein the one or more sensors operating in the measurement system comprises one or more of strength testing instruments, medical devices, imaging and vision devices, detectors, transducers, and sensors configured to measure physical quantities of real-world objects and events,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. 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 “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. The claim further recites more details or specifics of the additional element of the “confidence interval procedures engine,” where “[(a.1)] 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 “[(b)] forming from the plurality of distribution agnostic measurements, a dataset comprising a plurality of observations,” and “[(f)] outputting a one- or two-sided confidence interval for a population coefficient of multiple determination.” The activity of “[(b)] forming . . . 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 “[(f)] 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 “[(a)] automatically operating . . . disposed in the manufacturing environment to generate, from one or more sensors, in an automated flow of the manufacturing environment, which 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 recites more details or specifics of the additional element “[(b)] forming . . . a dataset,” where “[(b.1)] 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. The claim also receives more details or specifics of the “plurality of sensors,” wherein the one or more sensors operating in the measurement system comprises one or more of strength testing instruments, medical devices, imaging and vision devices, detectors, transducers, and sensors configured to measure physical quantities of real-world objects and events,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. 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 “[(c)] fit . . . a regression solver to the dataset to express the response variable value as a function of the plurality of explanatory variables,” “[(d)] compute a sample coefficient of multiple determination based on the function,” and “[(d)] compute a kurtosis of a sample of fitted values”. These activities of “[(c)] fit,” “[(d)] compute,” and “[(e)] 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 “[(c)] fit a regression solver,” “[(d)] compute a sample coefficient,” and “[(e)] compute a kurtosis” 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,” “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 serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim further recites more details or specifics of the additional element of the “confidence interval procedures engine,” where “[(a.1)] 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 “[(b)] form from the plurality of distribution agnostic measurements, a dataset comprising a plurality of observations,” and “[(f)] output a one- or two-sided confidence interval for a population coefficient of multiple determination.” 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 also recites “[(a)] automatically operating . . . disposed in the manufacturing environment to generate, from one or more sensors, in an automated flow of the manufacturing environment, which 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 recites more details or specifics of the additional element “[(b)] form a dataset,” where “[(b.1)] 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. The claim also receives more details or specifics of the “plurality of sensors,” wherein the one or more sensors operating in the measurement system comprises one or more of strength testing instruments, medical devices, imaging and vision devices, detectors, transducers, and sensors configured to measure physical quantities of real-world objects and events,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. 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,” “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. The claim further recites more details or specifics of the additional element of the “confidence interval procedures engine,” where “[(a.1)] 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 “[(b)] form from the plurality of distribution agnostic measurements, a dataset comprising a plurality of observations,” and “[(f)] output a one- or two-sided confidence interval for a population coefficient of multiple determination.” The activity of “[(b)] forming . . . 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 “[(f)] 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 “[(a)] automatically operating . . . disposed in the manufacturing environment to generate, from one or more sensors, in an automated flow of the manufacturing environment, which 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 recites more details or specifics of the additional element “[(b)] form . . . a dataset,” where “[(b.1)] 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. The claim also receives more details or specifics of the “plurality of sensors,” wherein the one or more sensors operating in the measurement system comprises one or more of strength testing instruments, medical devices, imaging and vision devices, detectors, transducers, and sensors configured to measure physical quantities of real-world objects and events,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. 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 “[(c)] fit . . . a regression solver to the dataset to express the response variable value as a function of the plurality of explanatory variables,” “[(d)] compute a sample coefficient of multiple determination based on the function,” and “[(d)] compute a kurtosis of a sample of fitted values”. These activities of “[(c)] fit,” “[(d)] compute,” and “[(e)] 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 “[(c)] fit a regression solver,” “[(d)] compute a sample coefficient,” and “[(e)] compute a kurtosis” 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 “plurality of sensors,” 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 “confidence interval procedures engine,” where “[(a.1)] 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 “[(b)] form from the plurality of distribution agnostic measurements, a dataset comprising a plurality of observations,” and “[(f)] output a one- or two-sided confidence interval for a population coefficient of multiple determination.” 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 also recites “[(a)] automatically operating . . . disposed in the manufacturing environment to generate, from one or more sensors, in an automated flow of the manufacturing environment, which 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 recites more details or specifics of the additional element “[(b)] form a dataset,” where “[(b.1)] 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. The claim also receives more details or specifics of the “plurality of sensors,” wherein the one or more sensors operating in the measurement system comprises one or more of strength testing instruments, medical devices, imaging and vision devices, detectors, transducers, and sensors configured to measure physical quantities of real-world objects and events,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. 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 “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. The claim further recites more details or specifics of the additional element of the “confidence interval procedures engine,” where “[(a.1)] 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 “[(b)] form from the plurality of distribution agnostic measurements, a dataset comprising a plurality of observations,” and “[(f)] output a one- or two-sided confidence interval for a population coefficient of multiple determination.” The activity of “[(b)] forming . . . 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 “[(f)] 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 “[(a)] automatically operating . . . disposed in the manufacturing environment to generate, from one or more sensors, in an automated flow of the manufacturing environment, which 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 recites more details or specifics of the additional element “[(b)] form . . . a dataset,” where “[(b.1)] 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. The claim also receives more details or specifics of the “plurality of sensors,” wherein the one or more sensors operating in the measurement system comprises one or more of strength testing instruments, medical devices, imaging and vision devices, detectors, transducers, and sensors configured to measure physical quantities of real-world objects and events,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. Therefore, claim 14 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claims 2 and 3 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Claim 9 depends directly or indirectly from claim 8. Claim 15 depends directly or indirectly from claim 14. The claims provide more details or specifics to the additional element of “[(a)] read a dataset,” where (claims 2, 9, and 15: “[(a.1)] generating the plurality of distribution agnostic measurements from one or more sensors in a manufacturing unit”; claim 3: wherein the plurality of distribution agnostic measurements are generated automatically”), and accordingly, are merely more specific to the additional element. Also, the element of “in a manufacturing unit” is generally linking the use of the 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, nor amounts to significantly more than 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 2, 3, 9, and 15 are 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 “[(d)] compute a kurtosis,” where (claims 4, 10, and 16: “[(d.1)] 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 “[(e.1)] 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 “[(e.1)] 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 “[(e)] output a one- or two-sided confidence interval,” where (claims 5, 11, and 17: “[(e.1)] 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 “[(e.1)] outputting the one- or two-sided confidence interval by computing” where (claims 6, 12, and 18: [(e.1.1)] 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 “[(e.1)] outputting the one- or two-sided confidence interval by computing” where (claims 7, 13, and 19: [(e.1.1)] 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
8. Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, and responds below accordingly.
35 U.S.C. § 101
9. Under Step 2A Prong One, “Applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims do not recite a judicial exception. . . . [Applicant asserts that such] measurements cannot be obtained with the mind, a pen, a paper or simple tools such as a ruler as measurements are not synonymous with estimates that merely require gauging or guessing of values. Moreover, the measurements are performed in a fabrication platform that allows the automated processing of fabricated units, with a goal being for example, to minimize of variations (Para 0064).” (Response at p. 12-13).
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the limitations directed to an abstract idea include the activities of “[(c)] fitting,” “[(d)] computing,” and “[(e)] 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), and that these activities are also mathematical concepts, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub I), as described above in detail.
10. Under Step 2A Prong Two, “Applicant argues that any abstraction of the limitations in the pending claims is integrated into the practical application of finding the confidence interval of measurements in a manufacturing environment where there is no assumption about the distribution of the measurements, an application with tremendous impact on manufacturing industries and the accuracy of measurement devices (See para 0023, 0024 below). The specification focusses on a specialized configuration that uses the concept of distribution agnostic measurements by a deliberate design to handle arbitrary/non-normal distributions of physical measurements in addition to handling normal distributions of physical measurements.” (Response at p. 14 (citing Specification ¶ 0023)).
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. 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.
11 Under Step 2B, “Applicants respectfully submit that the claims amount to "significantly more" than an abstract idea in that the amended independent claims 1 recite additional elements, including for example, using measurement devices to measure distribution agnostic measurements in an automated flow of the manufacturing environment, the confidence interval procedures engine is a special purpose fabrication platform, and the sensors operating in the dedicated measurement system comprise one or more of strength testing instruments, medical devices, imaging and vision devices, detectors, transducers, and sensors configured to measure physical quantities. As described by the specification, this allows decisions about manufacturing units to be made without limitation to the distribution the measurements come from.” (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 [(a)] forming . . . a dataset” and “[(f)] 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.
35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103
12. Applicant submits that “[f]rom a careful review of Kobayashi, it is abundantly clear that nowhere does Kobayashi disclose any concepts of distribution-agnostic measurements, or emphasize real-world measurement distributions or robustness to non-normality in any way. Kobayashi only data are from the same population (for training and test sets) so that prediction performance can be meaningfully estimated and decomposed into bias and variance (See Kobayashi, para 237). Further, Kobayashi is completely silent on a kurtosis of the fitted values, or a confidence interval for the coefficient of multiple determination. The Examiner asserts that FIG. 18 of Kobayashi discloses a "confidence interval". Even assuming, arguendo, that the Examiner's contentions are accurate, nowhere does Kobayashi disclose that the alleged confidence interval is a "confidence interval of the population coefficient of multiple determination", unlike what is described in Applicant's specification (for example, See Specification, para 0073).” (Response at pp. 15-16).
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments persuasive, and WITHDRAWS the rejections under Sections 102 and 103, accordingly.
Conclusion
13. 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.
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(US Published Application 20190098039 to Gates et al.) teaches statistical analysis, statistical inference, prediction, tracking, change detection, event detection and mathematical modeling can be performed in the math processor modules. Examples of these mathematical modeling can include statistical moments (centroids, means, variances, skewness, kurtosis, etc.), single and/or multiple linear and/or nonlinear regression, Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE), Bayesian calculations or any other mathematical modeling that allow for determination of decisions and confidences, by the system processor.
15. 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
1 Reference markers are added to the claim limitations for the limited purpose of aiding in the subject-matter eligibility evaluation and that of Section 102 and 103.
Prosecution Insights