DETAILED ACTION
Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. No information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted with the previous response.
Drawings
4. The drawings submitted on 3/10/2023 are in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.81 and 37 CFR § 1.83 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
5. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A data recording apparatus comprising at least one processor, wherein:
the at least one processor acquires measured measurement data by measuring a measurement target using a plurality of sensors, wherein the plurality of sensors includes at least one first sensor and at least one second sensor;
the at least one processor predicts predicted measurement data of at least one first sensor using the measured measurement data acquired from the plurality of sensors;
the at least one processor determines a set of sensors of the plurality of sensors capable of reproducing the measured measurement data for the plurality of sensors within a predetermined allowable range using the predicted measurement data of the at least one first sensor and the measured measurement data of the at least one second sensor, wherein the at least one first sensor is not included in the determined set of sensors and the at least one second sensor is included in the determined set of sensors;
the at least one processor selects the measured measurement data of the at least one second sensor as measurement data of the at least one first sensor; and
the at least one processor records the selected measurement data of the at least one second sensor for the at least one first sensor.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 19-20.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is an apparatus claim. Likewise, claim 19 is a process claim and claim 20 a non-transitory computer readable medium claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 is found to include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical concept and/or mental process. This can be seen in the claim limitation of “the at least one processor predicts predicted measurement data of at least one first sensor using the measured measurement data acquired from the plurality of sensors; the at least one processor determines a set of sensors of the plurality of sensors capable of reproducing the measured measurement data for the plurality of sensors within a predetermined allowable range using the predicted measurement data of the at least one first sensor and the measured measurement data of the at least one second sensor, wherein the at least one first sensor is not included in the determined set of sensors and the at least one second sensor is included in the determined set of sensors; the at least one processor selects the measured measurement data of the at least one second sensor as measurement data of the at least one first sensor;”, which is the judicial exception of a mental process and/or a mathematical concept because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, and/or judgements capable of being performed mentally.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 19-20.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed method recites additional elements including “(A) the at least one processor acquires measured measurement data by measuring a measurement target using a plurality of sensors, wherein the plurality of sensors includes at least one first sensor and at least one second sensor; (B) the at least one processor records the selected measurement data of the at least one second sensor for the at least one first sensor.” (claims 1 and 19-20) which are merely data gathering steps recited at a high level of generality (limitation A) and therefore merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”. The claim also recites or implies “a processor” (claims 1 and 19-20) however the “processor” is recited at a high level of generality, e.g. Spec. [0114] describing a variety of different types of “processors” that may be used, and merely amounts to the use of computer technology as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or the use of “processor” to perform the predictions, that are otherwise abstract, is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract to a particular field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., at least one processor records the selected measurement data of the at least one second sensor for the at least one first sensor”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the recorded output.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (claims 1 and 19-20). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claims 19-20, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-18, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements therefore these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for independent claims 1 and 19-20.
See Supreme court decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
8. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ema et al. US 2021/0400362.
With regards to claims 1 and 19-20, Ema et al. US 2021/0400362 teaches a data recording apparatus, method and a non-transitory computer readable medium with a program executed by a computer, comprising:
the at least one processor acquires measured measurement data by measuring a measurement target using a plurality of sensors, wherein the plurality of sensors includes at least one first sensor and at least one second sensor; (110; figure 1)(paragraph 0046)
the at least one processor predicts predicted measurement data of at least one first sensor using the measured measurement data acquired from the plurality of sensors; (130; figure 1)(paragraph 0010)
the at least one processor determines a set of sensors of the plurality of sensors capable of reproducing the measured measurement data for the plurality of sensors within a predetermined allowable range using the predicted measurement data of the at least one first sensor and the measured measurement data of the at least one second sensor, wherein the at least one first sensor is not included in the determined set of sensors and the at least one second sensor is included in the determined set of sensors; (paragraph 0011, 0047, & 0053-0055)
the at least one processor selects the measured measurement data of the at least one second sensor as measurement data of the at least one first sensor; (paragraph 0047)and
the at least one processor records the selected measurement data of the at least one second sensor for the at least one first sensor. (120; figure 1)
With regards to claim 2, Ema et al. US 2021/0400362 teaches the at least one processor assigns, to the at least one first sensor, identification information indicating whether a prediction value, which is obtained by predicting the predicted measurement data of the at least one first sensor from the at least one of the plurality of sensors that is different than the at least one first sensor, is within the allowable range, and the at least one first sensor which is assigned with the identification information indicating that the prediction value that is within the allowable range is included in the set. (paragraph 0046,0053)
With regards to claim 3, Ema et al. US 2021/0400362 teaches the at least one processor: generates a plurality of candidate sets of sensors capable of reproducing the measured measurement data acquired from the plurality of sensors within a predetermined allowable range; and a selects the set from the plurality of candidate sets according to a predetermined criterion. (paragraph 0053)
With regards to claim 4, Ema et al. US 2021/0400362 teaches the at least one processor generates the plurality of candidate sets on a basis of a round robin of patterns in which a prediction value obtained by predicting the predicted measurement data acquired from the at least one first sensor using the measured measurement data acquired from the at least one second sensor is within the allowable range. (paragraph 0010)
With regards to claim 5, Ema et al. US 2021/0400362 teaches the data recording apparatus according to wherein the at least one processor selects, among the plurality of candidate sets, a candidate set in which an amount of the selected measurement data to be recorded is smaller than a predetermined amount in preference to a candidate set in which the amount is larger than the predetermined amount. (paragraph 0063)
With regards to claim 6, Ema et al. US 2021/0400362 teaches at least one processor selects, among the plurality of candidate sets, a candidate set in which a difference between the measured measurement data and the predicted measurement is smaller than a predetermined amount in preference to a candidate set in which the difference is larger than the predetermined amount. (paragraph 0012)
With regards to claim 7-8, Ema et al. US 2021/0400362 teaches the allowable range is settable to a range different for each sensor of the plurality of sensors. (paragraph 0066)
With regards to claims 9-10, Ema et al. US 2021/0400362 teaches the at least one processor deletes the measured measurement data acquired from the at least one first sensor not included in the determined set of sensors and record only the measured measurement data acquired from the at least one second sensor included in the determined set of sensors. (paragraph 0066)
With regards to claims 11-12, Ema et al. US 2021/0400362 teaches the at least one processor records the measured measurement data acquired from the at least one first sensor not included in the determined set of sensors after reducing a number of at least one piece of data per unit time. (paragraph 0008)
With regards to claims 13-14, Ema et al. US 2021/0400362 teaches the at least one processor records the measured measurement data acquired from the at least one first sensor not included in the set after reducing a data size per piece of data.
With regards to claims 15-16, Ema et al. US 2021/0400362 teaches the at least one processor records the measured measurement data selected by the at least one processor data selection unit in response to a remaining capacity available for recording falling below a predetermined threshold value. (figure 2)
With regards to claim 17, Ema et al. US 2021/0400362 teaches the at least one processor records the measured measurement data selected by the at least one processor data selection unit in response to elapse of predetermined time. (paragraph 0044)
With regards to claim 18, Ema et al. US 2021/0400362 teaches at least one processor transmits the measured measurement data selected by the at least one processor data selection unit to another system or apparatus. (paragraph 0093)
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed 10/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In this instance applicant argues that the USC 112 rejections should be withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Examiner has withdrawn the rejections with regards to the rejections under USC 112.
Applicant also argues that the claims recite at least one processor, the recitations are not well known, the recitations of the claims are significant as evidence by the prior art rejection and the practical application of the embodiments covered by the claim and the recitations are significantly more than the “necessary data gathering and outputting”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the prior art and the recitations no being well known it is unclear how prior art is relevant with regards to a USC 101 rejection and what relief applicant is seeking based on this argument.
Regarding the inclusion of a processor it can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Regarding the argument that the recitations are significantly more that the “necessary data gathering and outputting”. It is unclear which particular step applicant is referring to. The final step is directed to a recording step which is considered insignificant extra solution activity as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Regarding the rejection under USC 102, applicant argues that the prior art does not teach a set of sensors of a plurality of sensors capable of reproducing the measured data…
Paragraphs [0046] discloses “ At Step S250, the data management system 100 generates prediction data. For example, the data predicting unit 130 views the measurement data stored by the data storage unit 120 at Step S220 and uses the measurement data acquired by the data acquiring unit 110 from another sensor among the plurality of sensors at Step S210 to generate the prediction data obtained by predicting the measurement data for each of the plurality of sensors.” and paragraph[0050] discloses” In the above description, for example, the correlation between the sets of measurement data from the plurality of sensors is known; “ It is Examiner’s position that the claims read on these sections of the prior art of record and therefore the rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
12. 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA S BHAT whose telephone number is (571)272-2270. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am-6pm.
14. 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.
15. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
16. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADITYA S BHAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 February 7, 2026