DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 22, line 2, “configured to” should be --further configured to-- for better clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
MPEP 2106 outlines a two-part analysis for Subject Matter Eligibility as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Step 2, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis. Abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 1-6 and 8-23 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 significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes). The claim recites:
1. A method comprising:
collecting, by one or more processors of a computing system, (i) first sensor data comprising a time series of data obtained from a first set of one or more sensors, and (ii) auxiliary data corresponding at least in part to the first sensor data;
generating, by the one or more processors, a first set of one or more detection rules for modifying the first sensor data by analyzing at least the first sensor data and the auxiliary data;
determining, by the one or more processors, that the first set of one or more detection rules is applicable to second sensor data from at least one of (i) the first set of one or more sensors or (ii) a second set of one or more sensors;
presenting, by the one or more processors, via one or more output devices of one or more computing devices, an indication of how the second sensor data would be modified through application of the first set of one or more detection rules:
receiving, by the one or more processors, via one or more input devices of the one or more computing devices, a user supplied modification of the first set of one or more detection rules: and
modifying, by the one or more processors, the second sensor data by applying the first set of one or more detection rules and the user supplied modification to the second sensor data to refine or supplement the second sensor data.
The above bold-faced limitations are directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper). For examples, the generating, determining, and modifying steps can be based on mathematical algorithms, and/or decision rules performed via a mental process.
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites additional elements as underlined in the claim above. The collecting step is recited at a high level of generality to collect the data for the abstract idea, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The one or more processors of a computing system is merely to invoke a generic computer to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Similarly, the presenting and receiving steps are insignificant extra-solution activities to facilitate data exchange, and the involvement of one or more computing devices are to invoking generic computer components to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. Together, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the additional element(s) in the claim are an insignificant extra-solution activity, and invoking a generic computer for its computing power to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. Also, it is routine and conventional to invoke a computer for data processing. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 21 is similarly rejected by analogy to claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-20, 22, and 23 when analyzed as a whole respectively are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they either extend (or add more details to) the abstract idea or the additional recited limitation(s) (if any) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as discussed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that sufficiently integrates the abstract idea into a practical application of, or makes the claims significantly more than, the judicial exception (abstract idea). The additional element(s) (if any) are mere instructions to apply an except, field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities (applied to Step 2A_Prong Two and Step 2B; see MPEP 2016.05(f)-(h)) and/or well-understood, routine, or conventional (applied to Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to facilitate the application of the abstract idea.
Notes
Claims 1 and 21 distinguish over the closest prior art of record as discussed below.
Regarding claims 1 and 21 the closest prior art of record fails to teach the features of claim 1 (as the representative): “receiving, by the one or more processors, via one or more input devices of the one or more computing devices, a user supplied modification of the first set of one or more detection rules: and modifying, by the one or more processors, the second sensor data by applying the first set of one or more detection rules and the user supplied modification to the second sensor data to refine or supplement the second sensor data,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Note that LI et al. (CN 110087207 A; cited previously) is silent about the above indicted feature. Li et al. teaches presenting suggested rules for selection or confirmation. It does not teach or suggest a user supplying a modification of the suggested rules, so as to be applied to the sensor data. Swartz et al. (US 12154037 B1; cited previously) teaches receiving a modified prediction and retrain the model. It does not teach or suggest the above indicated features. Lin et al. (US 8364613 B1) teaches a method of hosting predictive models, involving a user to modify a predictive model by supplying new training data for the model. This is different from the claimed features at issue.
Response to Arguments
The objections to the drawing have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and (d) have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Regarding 35 USC 101, Applicant argued: the features recited in claim 1 cannot be performed in the human mind or with simple tools. In particular, claim 1 is not directed to a mere mental process or abstract idea, but rather to a specific, technical solution for correcting sensor data using detection rules. The claim is directed to and recites a specific technical architecture (sensor data obtained from a first set of one or more sensors, generating detection rules, presenting via output devices and indication of how sensor data would be modified, receiving a user supplied modification, modifying sensor data by applying detection rules and user supplied modification), which cannot be performed in the human mind or with simple tools. Thus, claim 1 is fundamentally rooted in computer technology, and is therefore not directed to a judicial exception.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the limitations about the generating, determining, and modifying steps are recited at a high level of generality that they can be based on mathematical algorithm, and/or based on decision rules via a mental process. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argued: the features recited in claim 1 are directed to a specific improvement in the field of sensors and data collection. For example, by presenting "an indication of how the second sensor data would be modified through application of the first set of one or more detection rules", by receiving "a user supplied modification of the first set of one or more detection rules", and by modifying "the second sensor data by applying the first set of one or more detection rules and the user supplied modification to the second sensor data to refine or supplement the second sensor data" the solution improves the integrity of sensor data… By providing the user modification to the sensor data, the present solution facilitates the integrity of sensor data by detecting and correcting data errors and anomalies, providing guidance and recommendations to the sensor network operators on how to optimize sensor networks, etc. See, e.g. [0029]. Thus, these technical benefits are not mere extra-solution activity or merely instructions to apply the alleged judicial exception but results in improvements in data integrity of sensor networks.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the presenting and receiving steps are insignificant extra-solution activities for communicating information for the abstract idea. Note that the exchange of information (presenting and receiving) are just to facilitate application of the abstract idea which nevertheless requires the communicated information. The argued improvement in modifying sensor data is an improvement in the abstract idea via modified mathematical and/or decision rules. However, even if the claims are distinguishable as compared to prior art techniques, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” See MPEP 2106.05(I), citing Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation, 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant argued: claim 1 does not merely recite a generic computer implementation or environment, but instead is directed to a specific implementation of an environment… contrary to the positions set forth in the Office Action, the features recited in claim 1 are not a generic computer implementation, but instead a specific deployment which facilitates the addition of a user modification to the sensor data and resulting in the improvements of sensor data integrity of sensor networks.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the claimed invention is not directed to a specific implementation of an environment as argued. It merely invokes generic computer components for their conventional computer functionalities, such as communicating information and processing data. The sensor data is recited generally as a source of data for the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claimed as a whole does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857