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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant' s amendment and response filed 5/11/2026 has been entered and made record. This application contains 20 pending claims.
Claims 1, 10, 13, and 19 have been amended.
Claim 9 has been cancelled.
Claim 21 has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/11/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in claim 1-4, and 11-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Independent claims 1 and 13 have been amended and incorporated aspects of allowable claim 9, and thus, overcome the 103 rejections. Therefore, the 103 claims rejections in claims 1-4, and 11-16 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/11/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 7-8 of the remark filed on 5/11/2026 that “… These limitations do not recite a mathematical concept. The claims do not merely claim a mathematical relationship, formula, or equation. … Nor do the claims recite a mental process. The claimed operations are not practically performable in the human mind or with pen and paper. For example, generating run-specific equipment configurations from tickets identifying facility equipment modifications, mapping measurement data from multiple pieces of equipment into time series data based on the equipment configuration of a run, determining a common interval based on equipment measurement intervals, and interpolating measurement data to normalize each run are operations tied to equipment- generated measurement data and time-series data structures. The claims therefore recite more than mere observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The step of “analyze a plurality of tickets that identify modification of a plurality of equipment installed and configured at a facility, wherein each ticket identifies at least one of an installation of a first equipment, removal of the first equipment, or testing of the first equipment” is a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea. The steps of “generate a plurality of runs associated with an operation of the facility based on the plurality of tickets, wherein a run of the plurality of runs identifies an equipment configuration, a start time, and an end time”; “mapping measurement data from the plurality of equipment based on the equipment configuration of the run into time series data”; “determining a common interval based on a measurement interval associated with each equipment in the equipment configuration”; and “interpolating at least a portion of the measurement data based on the common interval to at least partially normalize each run” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea. A human mind can observe and evaluate collected information of mapping measurement data, analyze a plurality of tickets that identify modification of installation, removal, or testing of an equipment, and make determination, judgment and have opinion about whether or not to calibrate the data based on the evaluation of the identified events. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The applicant argues on pages 8-9 of the remark filed that “Regarding step 2A (prong 2) of the Alice analysis, Applicant's claims implement a practical application. Regarding Step 2A, Prong Two, even assuming, solely for the sake of argument, that the claims recite an abstract idea, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The claims do not merely collect information, analyze it, and display a result. Rather, the claims are directed to a specific technical solution for calibrating measurement data generated by equipment installed and configured at a facility. The practical application is rooted in the operation of physical facility equipment. … Accordingly, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two, and are not directed to a judicial exception.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Practical application can be demonstrated by additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements “a storage configured to store instructions”; and “a processor configured to execute the instructions” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The alleged improvement of facility equipment data calibration by producing calibrated, run-specific time series data from heterogeneous equipment measurements, including measurement data normalized according to equipment measurement intervals, and data from offline equipment that was unavailable during operation relates to improvement to the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the current claims do not recite additional elements that are indicative of integration of an abstract idea into a practical application.
The applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the remark filed that “… Even assuming, solely for the sake of argument, that the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the alleged exception into a practical application, the claims recite significantly more than the alleged exception. The claims are not directed merely to generic data collection or generic computer implementation. Rather, the claims recite a specific ordered combination for calibrating measurement data from facility equipment, including generating run- specific equipment configurations from tickets identifying equipment modifications, mapping measurement data into time series data based on the run-specific equipment configuration, determining a common interval based on equipment measurement intervals, and interpolating measurement data based on the common interval to at least partially normalize each run. … Accordingly, the claims recite significantly more than any alleged judicial exception, and the § 101 rejection should be withdrawn.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Significantly more can be demonstrated by additional elements that are not well-understood and conventional that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, the claims do not recite them. The additional elements “a storage configured to store instructions”; and “a processor configured to execute the instructions” are routine in calibrating the data based on the identified events are well-understood and conventional. Therefore, the claim 13 does not contain additional elements that are not well-understood and conventional that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites subject matter that are similar to that of claim 13, and therefore, the claim is also patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Therefore, claims 2-12, and 14-20 are also patent ineligible.
Hence, the Examiner submits that the rejections of Claims 1-20 are proper.
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 1-8, and 10-21 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.
As to claim 13, the claim recites “A system for calibrating measured data, comprising:
a storage configured to store instructions;
a processor configured to execute the instructions and cause the processor to:
analyze a plurality of tickets that identify modification of a plurality of equipment installed and configured at a facility, wherein each ticket identifies at least one of an installation of a first equipment, removal of the first equipment, or testing of the first equipment;
generate a plurality of runs associated with an operation of the facility based on the plurality of tickets, wherein a run of the plurality of runs identifies an equipment configuration, a start time, and an end time; and
mapping measurement data from the plurality of equipment based on the equipment configuration of the run into time series data;
determining a common interval based on a measurement interval associated with each equipment in the equipment configuration; and
interpolating at least a portion of the measurement data based on the common interval to at least partially normalize each run.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed 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 (apparatus for claim 13).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type 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 grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions).
In claim 13, the step of “analyze a plurality of tickets that identify modification of a plurality of equipment installed and configured at a facility, wherein each ticket identifies at least one of an installation of a first equipment, removal of the first equipment, or testing of the first equipment” is a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea.
The steps of “generate a plurality of runs associated with an operation of the facility based on the plurality of tickets, wherein a run of the plurality of runs identifies an equipment configuration, a start time, and an end time”; and
“mapping measurement data from the plurality of equipment based on the equipment configuration of the run into time series data”;
“determining a common interval based on a measurement interval associated with each equipment in the equipment configuration”; and
“interpolating at least a portion of the measurement data based on the common interval to at least partially normalize each run” are a mathematical concept, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
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 claim comprises the following additional elements:
a storage configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions.
The additional elements “a storage configured to store instructions”; and “a processor configured to execute the instructions” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. In addition, a generic processor is generally recited and therefore, not qualified as a particular machine.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 1 and 10 recite subject matter that is similar or analogous to that of claim 13, and therefore, the claims are also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-8, 11-12 and 14-21 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
Examiner' s Note
Regarding Claims 1-8, and 10-21, the most pertinent prior arts are “"Masuko US 20170185971", "Kroslid US 20200291767", "Hartmann US 20090177404", "Luciani US 20160033990", "Husain US 20220077878", and “Gao US 20210222552”.
As to claims 1, 10, and 13, Masuko teaches a storage configured to store instructions (FIG. 2 and [0048] disclose a program is stored in a storage 513);
a processor configured to execute the instructions (Masuko, FIG. 2 and [0048])) and cause the processor to:
analyze a plurality of tickets that identify modification of a plurality of equipment installed and configured at a facility wherein each ticket identifies at least one of an installation of a first equipment, removal of the first equipment, or testing of the first equipment (Masuko, [0018], [0042], [0108]).
Kroslid teaches generate a plurality of runs associated with an operation of the facility based on the plurality of tickets, wherein a run of the plurality of runs identifies an equipment configuration, a start time, and an end time (Kroslid, [0095] and [0097]); and
mapping measurement data from the plurality of equipment based on the equipment configuration of the run into time series data (Kroslid, [0087] and [0106]).
Gao teaches retrieving the plurality of tickets from a ticket database, wherein the ticket database identifies a change to at least one equipment at the facility (Gao, [0045], [0092]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “determining a common interval based on a measurement interval associated with each equipment in the equipment configuration”;
“interpolating at least a portion of the measurement data based on the common interval to at least partially normalize each run”; and
“sorting the plurality of tickets based on a time associated with each ticket of the plurality of tickets, wherein each a start of a run is associated with a first ticket and an end of the run is associated with a second ticket that is next in time to the first ticket” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 2-8, and 11-21 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 1 and 13.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-8, and 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
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 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 LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 EST.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (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 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights