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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9, 11- 23, and 25-28 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“An apparatus for shock severity estimation, the apparatus comprising: an accelerometer configured to capture a measured acceleration for an asset associated with the apparatus, wherein the measured acceleration is clipped based on an operating range of the accelerometer; at least one memory configured to store the measured acceleration; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to: determine that a signal of interest associated with the measured acceleration over a first period of time is less than a threshold; obtain, from the at least one memory based on the determination that the signal of interest associated with the measured acceleration over the first period of time is less than the threshold, the measured acceleration over a second period of time; determine a signal of interest associated with the measured acceleration over the second period of time is greater than the threshold; based on the determination that the signal of interest associated with the measured acceleration over the second period of time is greater than the threshold, declip the measured acceleration over the second period of time for the asset to determine a reconstructed acceleration for the asset; determine a velocity estimate for the asset based on the reconstructed acceleration; and determine, based on the velocity estimate, at least one shock severity metric associated with a shock experienced by the asset.“
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “declip the measured acceleration for the asset to determine a reconstructed acceleration for the asset; determine a velocity estimate for the asset based on the reconstructed acceleration” are treated as belonging to the mathematical concepts grouping while the step of “determine a signal of interest associated with the measured acceleration over a first period of time is less than a threshold”, “determine that a signal of interest associated with the measured acceleration over the second period of time is greater than the threshold”, “determine, based on the velocity estimate, at least one shock severity metric associated with a shock experienced by the asset” is treated as belonging to mental process grouping. This mental steps represents a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. In the context of this claim, this step encompasses the user manually making a decision about potential exceedance of acceleration thresholds and about the shock based on the calculated velocity estimate value.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 15.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: An apparatus for shock severity estimation, the apparatus comprising: an accelerometer configured to capture a measured acceleration for an asset associated with the apparatus, wherein the measured acceleration is clipped based on an operating range of the accelerometer; at least one memory configured to store the measured acceleration; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to: determine a signal of interest associated with the measured acceleration; obtain, from the at least one memory … the measured acceleration over a second period of time;
In Claim 15: A method for shock severity estimation performed by a device, the method comprising: capturing, using an accelerometer of the device, a measured acceleration for an asset associated with the device, wherein the measured acceleration is clipped based on an operating range of the accelerometer; store the measured acceleration in at least one memory; determine a signal of interest associated with the measured acceleration over a first period of time; obtain, from the at least one memory … the measured acceleration over a second period of time
The additional elements in the preambles above are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims such as at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (Claim 1) and one memory configured to store the measured acceleration/storing the measured acceleration in at least one memory (Claims 1 and 15) are examples of generic computer equipment (components) that are generally recited and, therefore, are not qualified as particular machines. Similarly, “capturing (obtaining), using an accelerometer of the device, a measured acceleration over a first and second periods of time for an asset associated with the device, wherein the measured acceleration is clipped based on an operating range of the accelerometer” (both claims) is generically recited mere data gathering steps that are not meaningful and represents insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record (Vock, Marinkovic, Jonscher, Chan. Donaldson, Bugaev).
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-9, 11-14, 16-23, and 25-28 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising mathematical and mental process steps) and/or generically recite additional elements that are not meaningful/do not reflect a practical application/are not qualified for significantly more (Claims 7, 13, 21, and 27 recite accelerometer). Therefore, these claims are not eligible for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
Examiner Note with Regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-9, 11-23, 25-28 are distinguished over prior art of record based on the reasons below.
In regards to Claims 1 and 15, the claims differ from the closest prior art, Vock, Chan, Marinkovic, Bugayev, and Nielsen, either singularly or in combination, because they fail to anticipate or render obvious obtain, from the at least one memory based on the determination that the signal of interest associated with the measured acceleration over the first period of time is less than the threshold, the measured acceleration over a second period of time, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (p. 9): The pending claims are directed to a specific technical solution for operating a sensor-limited physical device (an asset-associated tracking device including an accelerometer with a limited operating range that produces clipped measured acceleration) to yield improved shock severity estimation. In particular, claim 1 recites: (i) capturing measured acceleration that is clipped based on the accelerometer operating range; (ii) conditionally selecting a particular time window of stored acceleration based on a first/second time-window thresholding scheme; (iii) declipping the measured acceleration over the selected second period of time to determine a reconstructed acceleration; (iv) determining a velocity estimate based on the reconstructed acceleration; and (v) determining at least one shock severity metric based on that velocity estimate. These limitations are rooted in the operation of a physical sensing system and address a practical technical problem: clipped acceleration measurements from low-range accelerometers that would otherwise prevent accurate shock severity estimation ...Even if certain computations within the claims can be described at a high level as mathematical operations, the claims as a whole integrate any such operations into a practical application by requiring their use in a specific sensor-processing pipeline for accelerometer clipping, reconstruction of clipped acceleration, and generating shock severity metrics for an asset-associated device …
The Examiner note that the improvement in “clipped acceleration measurements from low-range accelerometers that would otherwise prevent accurate shock severity estimation” is accomplished via abstract idea steps. However, according to MPEP 2106.05(a).II: “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology … the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology”. which is not qualified as demonstrating a practical application.
The Applicant argues (p. 9): the Office Action's "mental process" characterization does not comport with the claim requirements. The claims require operations on stored measured acceleration over first and second time periods and performing declipping to determine reconstructed acceleration, followed by determining a velocity estimate and shock severity metric. Such operations are performed on sensor sample data stored in memory and are not practically performable "in the human mind," particularly in the context of sampled accelerometer signals and reconstruction of clipped measurements.
The Examiner submits that the obtaining sensor data stored in memory is not classified as a mental step as well as operation on the stored data.
The Applicant argues (p. 9-10): Step 2B: Significantly more. The claims recite more than generic computing. They require an accelerometer producing clipped data due to operating range constraints, memory storage of that measured acceleration, conditional retrieval of time-windowed data from memory based on signal-of-interest thresholding across time periods, declipping to reconstruct acceleration, and computation of velocity and shock severity metrics based on the reconstructed acceleration. This combination is a specific, technical signal-processing workflow tied to a physical device and a physical phenomenon (shock to an asset), and it yields improved technical results (enabling robust shock severity estimation notwithstanding accelerometer clipping).
The claim recites additional elements/steps of data gathering and data retrieval from memory without using a particular machine or transformation. These steps are “necessary precursor for all uses of the judicial exception” as indicated in the rejection and, therefore, represent insignificant extra-solution activity. No “significantly more” elements or combination of elements were identified.
“A specific, technical signal-processing workflow” is a combination of abstract idea steps that are not considered in “significantly more” analysis. With regards to the argument that the claim steps are tied to a physical device, the Examiner submits that mere physicality does not guaranty eligibility (MPEP 2106.04(d).I: “mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility”).
The Applicant argues (p. 10): Dependent claims further reinforce the technical nature of the invention. For example, claims 7-9 and 21-23 recite particular declipping implementations, including applying a signal processing algorithm to above-threshold samples and neighboring samples, using a linear regression model, and training the model against previously captured samples. These are technical signal-processing features that are not mental steps and further integrate the claimed subject matter into a practical application directed to reconstructing clipped sensor data.
The Examiner disagrees and submits that the argued dependent claim features represent abstract idea steps corresponding to mathematical relationship/mental concepts. These steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as no meaningful additional elements or significantly more additional elements are recited.
35 USC § 112, 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 2/6/2026, with respect to Claim 1 (15) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 112(b) and 35 USC § 103 rejections of Claim 1 (15) have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bougaev et al. (US 2011/0208678) discloses an apparatus for shock severity estimation including shock event tracking/counting.
Thomas Donaldson (US 20140278208) discloses clipping due to accelerations that exceed a current range.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. 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.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857