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 .
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: “I/O modules” (claim 1), “data pre-process module” (claim 1), “value classifying-computing module” (claim 1), “value comparing 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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 10, the difference between “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” (claim 1, lines 16-18; claim 10, lines 14-16) and “perform a normalizing process to each of the multiple second difference-value combinations” (claim 1, lines 18-19; claim 10, lines 17-18) is unclear. In view of the description in the specification, Examiner interprets them to be the same (see specification, page 16, line 25 – page 17, line 18).
Claims 1 and 10, “its” (claim 1, line 22; claim 10, line 21) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner interprets “its” to mean – each of the second difference value combinations --.
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 its first feature value” (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 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 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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lunden et al. (US 2022/0291184) discloses a testing system and method for sensor data of monitoring system (Fig. 1), comprising:
multiple sensors (sensors in sensor platform, Fig. 1) corresponding to same certain category (sensor platforms 120A, 120B, 120C), wherein each of the multiple sensors (112, 114, 116, 122, 124, 126, 132, 134) respectively generates multiple sensing data (Fig. 1);
multiple I/O modules (I/O ports of sensors) each respectively connected with one of the multiple sensors (I/O port of a sensor) to continuously collect the multiple sensing data of each of the multiple sensors (sensor senses via an I/O port);
a server (150), connected with the multiple I/O modules through a network communication apparatus (108) (Fig. 1) to receive the multiple sensing data of the multiple sensors (Fig. 1).
Zhu et al. (CN 114429186) discloses performing a data cleaning procedure (via a Kalman filter, page 4, paragraph 12, lines 1-2) to sensing data of the sensor (original sensor data, page 4, paragraph 12, line 1) to respectively generate multiple cleaned data for each of the multiple sensors (filtering by Kalman filter to reduce noise).
Say et al. (US 2009/0177060) discloses computing multiple difference values of the multiple cleaned data of any two of the multiple sensors (comparing sensor electrodes 58’s to determine if level of tolerance is met, paragraph 0238, lines4-9).
Goode et al. (US 2008/0189051) discloses obtaining a measuring-accuracy value of the certain category (reference analyte value, Fig. 7), respectively subtract the measuring-accuracy value (reference analyte value) from the sensor data. However, Goode et al. does not disclose subtracting the measuring-accuracy value from the multiple difference values of each of the multiple difference-value combinations to obtain multiple second difference-value combinations.
Lu et al. (WO 2020/072315) discloses creating a normalization baseline for a probe; generating a coverage index for a probe in the set of probes; and determining a difference between the coverage index of the probe and a set confidence interval established from a normal range of coverage index, wherein a CNV is detected where a p-value for the difference is equal to or less than a set threshold (paragraph 0008).
However, the above references do not disclose 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.
TW Search Report lists Lunden et al. (US 2022/0291184) and Zhu et al. (CN 114429186).
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 March 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights