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 .
The amendment filed on July 1, 2026 has been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “error counting module” (claim 1).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 10, “reset the accumulated number of the testing failure labels of
the sensor upon detecting the sensor has been maintained or replaced” is not described in the original disclosure.
Instead, e.g., paragraph 0150 of the original specification discloses “[a]fter this sensor 3 has been maintained or changed, the error counting module 24 resets the error count of this sensor 3 to zero for the sensor 3 to re-accumulate its error count” (specification, page 26, lines 13-15). Page 26, lines 13-15 does not disclose “reset the accumulated number of the testing failure labels of the sensor upon detecting the sensor has been maintained or replaced”.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1 and 10 recite an abstract idea of “perform a data cleaning procedure to the multiple sensing data of the multiple sensors to respectively generate multiple cleaned data for each of the multiple sensors” (mental process), “compute multiple difference values of the multiple cleaned data of any two of the multiple sensors in accordance with a designated order-direction to generate multiple difference-value combinations” (mathematical concept), “obtain a measuring-accuracy value of the certain category” (mental process), “subtract the measuring-accuracy value from the multiple difference values of each of the multiple difference-value combinations to obtain multiple second difference-value combinations” (mathematical concept), “perform a normalizing process to each of the multiple second difference-value combinations” (mathematical concept), “calculate a first feature value of each of the second difference-value combinations” (mathematical concept), “obtain a p-value corresponding to each of the second difference-value combinations based on each of the second difference-value combinations and the first feature value of each of the second difference-value combinations” (mathematical concept), “determine the p-value corresponding to the first feature value of the second difference-value combination to be less than a first default value” (mental process), the measuring-accuracy value is information determined upon completion of manufacture of the
sensor of the certain category (mental process).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (server/computer modules) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the abstract idea is not integrated into a particular solution of the abstract idea.
Multiple sensors corresponding to same certain category, wherein each of the multiple sensors respectively generates multiple sensing data; multiple I/O modules each respectively connected with one of the multiple sensors to continuously collect the multiple sensing data of each of the multiple sensors, imported into the testing system, record a testing failure label for the two sensors having the label are directed to insignificant extra solution activities of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
A server, connected with the multiple I/O modules through a network communication apparatus to receive the multiple sensing data of the multiple sensors is also directed to an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(A)).
Multiple sensors corresponding to same certain category, wherein each of the multiple sensors respectively generates multiple sensing data; multiple I/O modules each respectively connected with one of the multiple sensors to continuously collect the multiple sensing data of each of the multiple sensors, imported into the testing system, record a testing failure label for the two sensors having the label are further directed to well-understood, routine and conventional activities known in the industry, have been found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the claimed judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
A server, connected with the multiple I/O modules through a network communication apparatus to receive the multiple sensing data of the multiple sensors is also further directed to well-understood, routine and conventional activities known in the industry, have been found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the claimed judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 2-9 and 11- 18 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 9, 15, 16, and 18 are directed to conventional insignificant extra solution activities.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 10 and their respective dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Prior Art Note
Claims 1-18 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein a testing system and method for sensor data of monitoring system comprising obtaining a measuring-accuracy value of the certain category, respectively subtract the measuring-accuracy value from the multiple difference values of each of the multiple difference-value combinations to obtain multiple second difference-value combinations (claims 1, 10) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 1, 2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim amendments, Applicants argue that “[t]he amendments are fully supported in originally filed Claims 9 and 19 and pages 9 and 26 of the originally filed specification, as follows:
Measuring-accuracy value (page 9): …
Anomaly alarm (page 26): The specification discloses: "Therefore, the user may be notified that this sensor 3 is abnormal or suspected to be abnormal and then maintains or changes this sensor 3. After this sensor 3 has been maintained or changed, the error counting module 24 resets the error count of this sensor 3 to zero for the sensor 3 to re-accumulate its error count. "
However, the (original) specification does not disclose “reset the accumulated number of the testing failure labels of the sensor upon detecting the sensor has been maintained or replaced” as claimed.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicants argue “claims as amended integrate any recited abstract idea into a specific practical application-improving the technical performance of sensor monitoring systems-through two concrete technical mechanisms: (1) manufacturer-calibrated measuring-accuracy compensation that corrects for physical sensor manufacturing variations; and (2) a concrete technical action chain from statistical anomaly detection to real-world user notification, physical maintenance or replacement, and system state reset.”
Applicants appear to argue that the claims are practical because they are directed to a technological improvement. Examiner notes that to be indicative of integration into a practical application. The technological improvement must be pursuant with MPEP 2106.05(a). Pursuant to MPEP 2106.05(a), Pursuant to MPEP 2106.05(a), “[a]n indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. Examiner also notes that the technical solution of “reset the accumulated number of the testing failure labels of the sensor upon detecting the sensor has been maintained or replaced” is not described in the specification, as discussed above.
Applicants further argue “the claims as a whole are directed to a specific technical solution to a concrete technical problem in sensor monitoring systems.” Applicants then discuss the Special Technical Problem and Special Technical Solution to solve the Special Technical Problem.
Examiner’s position is that Applicants have not shown where in the specification is a discussion that identifies a technical problem and where in the specification are explanations of the details of an unconventional technical., pursuant to MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicants further argue “[t]his technical problem and its solution are rooted in the physical reality of sensor manufacturing and the practical functioning of industrial monitoring systems, not in abstract mathematics divorced from physical application.”
Examiner’s position is that the above arguments indicate that the technical solution is not an unconventional technical solution, rather the technical solution is well-known and conventional.
Applicants further argue since the claims achieve a technical improvement, the claims integrate the exception into a practical application (see Applicants’ Remarks, pages 17-18).
Examiner’s position is that pursuant to MPEP 2106.05(a), “[a]n indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. Applicants have not shown a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.
Applicants further argue “[t]he measuring-accuracy value import introduces manufacturer-certified physical calibration data from an external real-world source - not generic data collection. The error counting module issues an alarm directing users to physically maintain or replace sensor hardware, and detects the completion of that real-world physical event to execute automatic reset. These are not pre-solution or post-solution data gathering activities - they close the loop between digital anomaly detection and the physical lifecycle management of sensor hardware.”
Examiner’s position is that the “the measuring-accuracy value is information determined upon completion of manufacture of the sensor of the certain category and is imported into the testing system” I directed to an abstract idea (evaluation). However, the information is not recited to be used/applied by the testing system in a meaningful way. The error counting module issues an alarm directing users to physically maintain or replace sensor hardware is not based on any abstract idea, e.g., the information is not based on a determined value/parameter. As discussed above, resetting the accumulated number of the testing failure labels of the sensor upon detecting the sensor has been maintained or replaced is not described in original specification. Further, resetting the accumulated number of testing failure is directed to data processing/modification which can be performed as a mental process.
Applicants further argue “[t]he additional limitations introduced into the amended claims are machine- implemented, non-conventional technical functions with no counterpart in the prior art of record:
Automatic per-sensor accumulation of testing failure labels across testing cycles, triggered by statistically significant pairwise sensor anomalies;
Automatic anomaly alarm issuance upon reaching a preset accumulated threshold, specifically directing a user to perform physical maintenance or replacement of the identified sensor hardware; and
Automatic detection of the completed physical maintenance or replacement and automatic reset of the accumulated testing failure label count - restoring the monitoring system to its operational baseline without manual intervention.”
Examiner’s position is that record a testing failure label for the two sensors having the label (recording sensor failures) are a conventional extra solution activity of data gathering, issue an anomaly alarm to notify a user to perform\ maintenance or
replacement of the sensor when an accumulated number of the testing failure labels of any one of the multiple sensors reaches a preset amount (perform maintenance or replacement of a sensor when the sensors reach a limit/threshold) is a conventional activity; reset the accumulated number of the testing failure labels of the sensor upon
detecting the sensor has been maintained or replaced is directed to data processing which can be performed in a mental process.
Applicants further argue “[t]hese are not mental processes or human observations. They are machine-implemented operations that function continuously, simultaneously, and in real time across all sensors in the monitoring system, and that couple the digital monitoring system to real-world physical events”.
Examiner’s position is that operations that function continuously, simultaneously, and in real time across all sensors in the monitoring system may not be performed as a mental process, the operations are for the mere purpose of data gathering. Thus, they are directed to insignificant extra solution activities of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Applicants further argue “the physical maintenance or replacement of sensor hardware and the system's detection of that completed physical action. These operations cannot practically be performed manually at operational scale, and the Examiner has cited no prior art, official notice, or technical literature establishing them as well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field of sensor monitoring systems.”
Examiner’s position is that the physical maintenance or replacement of sensor hardware when the sensors reach a limit/threshold are conventional activities (see Kulkarni et al. US 2023/0186756, paragraph 0069; Varsavsky et al. US 2023/0157566, paragraph 0252). As discussed above, resetting the accumulated number of the testing
failure labels of the sensor upon detecting the sensor has been maintained or replaced is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicants further argue “[e]xample 3 (halftoning a gray scale image) was found patent-eligible because its blue noise mask algorithm enables a computer to use fewer hardware memory resources than prior art, reflecting an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself (Step 2B: Yes).”
Examiner’s position with respect to the technological improvement has been discussed above. Applicants have not shown a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art, pursuant to MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are traversed in view of the grounds of rejection and discussion above.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
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 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).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 August 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights