Updated 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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 04/09/2026, are accepted and appreciated by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments see Remarks, filed 04/09/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Measuring materials is not an abstract idea, but it is an additional element that does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. It just generally links the judicial exceptions to measuring materials using some kind of analytical method. Furthermore, claim 1 doesn’t even include the measuring step. It merely states that measurements are input into a computer. Generic measuring can be viewed as mere data gathering as seen in MPEP 2106.05(g) and inputting data into a computer is merely using a computer as a tool as seen in 2106.05(a).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/09/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Tsubouchi (US 20170078397 A1) and Yuichiro (JP 6503966 B2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. They do not explicitly teach, “obtain, by using a principal component analysis as the statistical method, feature values for each of the plurality of analytical methods; calculate, as values of the quantification, correlation values of the feature values for each of the plurality of analytical methods; select an analytical method appropriate for analyzing the material among the plurality of analytical methods based on results of the quantification, wherein, based on the correlation values being greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, the analytical method appropriate for analyzing the material is selected by excluding one of corresponding analytical methods.” Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
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, 3-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1,
Step 2A Prong One:
The following bold limitations are considered abstract:
“An information system, comprising:
a plurality of user terminals for inputting material-related measurement data of a material that is measured using a plurality of analytical methods, based on different measurement principles;
a memory; and
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor being configured to:
acquire, from the plurality of user terminals, the material-related measurement data measured by the plurality of analytical methods;
quantify the acquired measurement data using a predetermined statistical method;
obtain, by using a principal component analysis as the statistical method, feature values for each of the plurality of analytical methods;
calculate, as values of the quantification, correlation values of the feature values for each of the plurality of analytical methods;
select an analytical method appropriate for analyzing the material among the plurality of analytical methods based on results of the quantification, wherein, based on the correlation values being greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, the analytical method appropriate for analyzing the material is selected by excluding one of corresponding analytical methods;
and display, on a display of at least one user terminal of the plurality of user terminals, the selected analytical method.”
The above bolded limitations are directed to abstract ideas and would fall within the “Mathematical Concept” and “Mental Process” groupings of abstract ideas. Obtaining feature values using PCA and calculating correlation values are mathematical concepts as seen in para(s). [0025-0026] of the specification. According to MPEP 2106.04(C) “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” Selecting an analysis method using a threshold is a mental process. A person can compare a value to a threshold and make judgements based off of said comparison in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements –
“An information system, comprising:
a plurality of user terminals for inputting material-related measurement data of a material that is measured using a plurality of analytical methods, based on different measurement principles;
a memory; and
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor being configured to:
acquire, from the plurality of user terminals, the material-related measurement data measured by the plurality of analytical methods;
and display, on a display of at least one user terminal of the plurality of user terminals, the selected analytical method.”
Examiner views these limitations amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims
-Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP
2106.05(b)
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Moreover, Examiner views the claims to be merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to measurement data from a generic material. Furthermore, the plurality of interfaces are viewed as using a computer as a tool for necessary data input, acquiring the measurement data is viewed as mere data gathering, and displaying the analytical method is necessary data outputting.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claim fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception because the limitations “An information system, comprising: a plurality of user terminals for inputting material-related measurement data of a material that is measured using a plurality of analytical methods, based on different measurement principles; a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor being configured to: acquire, from the plurality of user terminals, the material-related measurement data measured by the plurality of analytical methods; and display, on a display of at least one user terminal of the plurality of user terminals, the selected analytical method” just tie the claim to some computational device and material data. Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by Wright (US 20190385707 A1) and Lefkofsky (US 20210118559 A1).
With respect to claim 5,
Step 2A Prong One:
The following bold limitations are considered abstract:
“An information processing method, comprising: measuring a material using a plurality of analytical methods, based on different measurement principles;
inputting material-related measurement data measured by the plurality of analytical methods, by a processor:
acquiring, from the plurality of user terminals, the material-related measurement data measured by the plurality of analytical methods, based on the different measurement principles;
quantifying the measurement data using a predetermined statistical method;
obtaining, by using a principal component analysis as the statistical method, feature values for each of the plurality of analytical methods;
calculating, as values of the quantification, correlation values of the feature values for each of the plurality of analytical methods;
selecting an analytical method appropriate for analyzing the material among the plurality of analytical methods based on results of the quantification, wherein, based on the correlation values being greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, the analytical method appropriate for analyzing the material is selected by excluding one of corresponding analytical methods; and
displaying, on a display of at least one user terminal of the plurality of user terminals, the selected analytical method.”
The above bolded limitations are directed to abstract ideas and would fall within the “Mathematical Concept” and “Mental Process” groupings of abstract ideas. Obtaining feature values using PCA and calculating correlation values are mathematical concepts as seen in para(s). [0025-0026] of the specification. According to MPEP 2106.04(C) “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” Selecting an analysis method using a threshold is a mental process. A person can compare a value to a threshold and make judgements based off of said comparison in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements –
“measuring a material using a plurality of analytical methods, based on different measurement principles;
inputting material-related measurement data measured by the plurality of analytical methods, by a processor:
acquiring, from the plurality of user terminals, the material-related measurement data measured by the plurality of analytical methods, based on the different measurement principles;
displaying, on a display of at least one user terminal of the plurality of user terminals, the selected analytical method.”
Examiner views these limitations amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims
-Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP
2106.05(b)
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Moreover, Examiner views the claims to be merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to measurement data from a generic material. Furthermore, the plurality of interfaces are viewed as using a computer as a tool for necessary data input, measuring and acquiring the measurement data is viewed as mere data gathering, and displaying the analytical method is just necessary data outputting.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claim fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception because the limitations “measuring a material using a plurality of analytical methods, based on different measurement principles; inputting material-related measurement data measured by the plurality of analytical methods, by a processor: acquiring, from the plurality of user terminals, the material-related measurement data measured by the plurality of analytical methods, based on the different measurement principles; displaying, on a display of at least one user terminal of the plurality of user terminals, the selected analytical method” just tie the claim to some computational device and material data. Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by Wright (US 20190385707 A1) and Lefkofsky (US 20210118559 A1).
Dependent claims 3, 4, and 7 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below:
The dependent claims are directed to generating a heat map and further defining correlation values which are mathematical concepts and abstract ideas. Claim 7 lists a plurality of well-known analysis methods which just generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as seen in MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, dependent claims 3, 4, and 7 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Prior Art Analysis
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, however, none of the known prior art could be applied to the claims for the following reasons.
With respect to claims 1 and 5,
Tsubouchi (US 20170078397 A1) teaches,
A measurement data collecting system includes a data receiving unit that receives first data measured by a first sensor that is acquired at a mobile terminal, and a determining unit that determines environment of the mobile terminal when the first data is acquired based on second data measured by a second sensor that is acquired at the mobile terminal. (Abstract) They further teach a memory, a processor, and a plurality of user terminals for acquiring data where the measurement data is quantified. (Fig. 7 and Para. [0042]) The data acquired amounts to temperature, pressure, position, acceleration etc. which would be measured by a plurality of analytical methods where the data is quantified using an analysis method. (Para(s). [0117-0118 & 0038]) However, they do not explicitly teach selecting an analytical method appropriate for analyzing the material among the plurality of analytical methods based on results of the quantification, a principal component analysis, or displaying the selected method.
Wright (US 20190385707 A1) teaches,
An image acquisition and analysis system where the system automates image acquisition, image data processing, simplify data storage, and enable automated analysis tools to significantly reduce the manual labor and time associated with such tasks. (Abstract) They further teach selecting equipment to perform the tasks as well as selecting experiment design where the used instruments include a spectroscope (e.g., ultraviolet-visible spectroscope, near-infrared spectroscope, X-ray chromatography equipment, atomic emission chromatography equipment, or a mass spectrometer. They also teach using principal component analysis to classify received data. However, they do not explicitly teach selecting an analytical method appropriate for analyzing the material among the plurality of analytical methods based on principal component analysis where based on the correlation values being greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, the analytical method appropriate for analyzing the material is selected by excluding one of corresponding analytical methods.
Keenan (US 20230218219 A1) teaches,
A system for achieving optimal sensor placement and enhanced signal quality for monitoring maternal and fetal activities. (Abstract) They further teach selecting optimal sensors using principal component analysis (PCA). (Para. [0053]) However, they do not explicitly teach, based on the correlation values being greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, the analytical method appropriate for analyzing the material is selected by excluding one of corresponding analytical methods.
Risoluti (EP 4083820 A1) teaches,
The present invention is located in the field of systems and methods for processing analytical data capable of identifying and/or quantifying individual components, individual analytes or other components which may be present in the sample. (Abstract) They further teach comparing the performances of models and selecting an analytic instrument from a spectrometer, mass spectrometer, nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer, spectroscope, spectrophotometer, IR, FT-IR, NIR or micro-NIR spectrophotometer, thermogravimetry, chromatograph, gas chromatograph, liquid chromatograph. (Para(s). [0021 and 0046]) They also teach principal component analysis to identify components in the sample being analyzed. (Para. [0025]) However, they do not explicitly teach selecting an analytical method appropriate for analyzing the material among the plurality of analytical methods based on principal component analysis where based on the correlation values being greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, the analytical method appropriate for analyzing the material is selected by excluding one of corresponding analytical methods.
As seen above none of the known prior art explicitly teaches and it would be non-obvious to combine the known prior art to teach,
“obtain, by using a principal component analysis as the statistical method, feature values for each of the plurality of analytical methods;
calculate, as values of the quantification, correlation values of the feature values for each of the plurality of analytical methods;
select an analytical method appropriate for analyzing the material among the plurality of analytical methods based on results of the quantification, wherein, based on the correlation values being greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, the analytical method appropriate for analyzing the material is selected by excluding one of corresponding analytical methods.”
Therefore, prior art cannot be applied to claims 1 and 5. Prior art cannot be applied to claims 3, 4, and 7 because they are dependent upon claim 1.
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 JOSHUA L FORRISTALL whose telephone number is 703-756-4554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM- 5 PM.
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 on 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.
/JOSHUA L FORRISTALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 /LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights