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 Objections Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation, “using the neural network mode” in line 10 of claim 1, similarly recited in line 14 of Claim 11, appears to be a typo and should be --using the neural network model--. In the interest of compact prosecution the limitation will be examined as such. If instead applicant is attempting to set forth a new claim element of a, “neural network mode” then there is a lack of antecedent basis that would need to be corrected. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-12 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. ( Step 1: YES ). The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 11 and product Claim 12 . Claim 1 recites the limitations of processing sensing signals received from a plurality of sensors configured to detect different objects and outputting sensing data obtained by converting the sensing signals into digital signals ; generating input data to be input to a neural network model by variably adjusting a size of the sensing data; performing an operation in an analog domain on the input data using the neural network mod el and outputting operation data obtained by converting an operation result into digital data ; and outputting a monitoring result obtained by classifying an abnormal condition based on the operation data. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity / mathematical concepts . Classifying an abnormal condition recites a fundamental economic practice (mitigating risk) / mathematical relationships . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice (mitigating risk) / mathematical relationships , then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” / “Mathematical Concepts ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The plurality of sensors in Claims 1 and 12, and the memory, processor, and plurality of sensors in Claim 11 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The neural network model used in Claims 1, 11, and 12 merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment . The converting the sensing signals into digital signals and converting an operation result into digital data in Claim s 1, 11, and 12 appears to be just software. Claims 11 and 12 are also abstract for similar reasons. ( Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite t he plurality of sensors in Claims 1 and 12, and the memory, processor, and plurality of sensors in Claim 11 t he neural network model used in Claims 1, 11, and 12 , and converting the sensing signals into digital signals and converting an operation result into digital data in Claims 1, 11, and 12 . The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality ( i.e. , as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore , claims 1 , 11 , and 12 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. ( Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application ) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s published specification para. [ 0005, 0147, 0180-0195 ] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Even assuming there was a technical problem, the claims, as written, fail to recite the details of how a technical solution to the technical problem was accomplished. If there was a technical problem (e.g., existing technology was incapable of performing the claimed functions) then the claims should recite the details of the technical solution (e.g., how existing technology was improved to overcome this inability). However, the claims, as written, provide no such details and merely recite that the claimed functions (i.e., the outcome) are being performed. In addition, performing the judicial exception steps using a neural network model merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2105(h). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1 , 11 , and 12 are not patent eligible. (St ep 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more ) Dependent claims 2-10 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 , 11 , and 12 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity / Mathematical Concepts and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claim 2 further defines the types of known sensors that could be used with the instant method without adding significantly more; Claim s 3 -5 further details the outputting sensing data and selection control signal; Claim 6 further details the generating input data; Claims 7-10 further details the outputting operation data without adding significantly more. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-10 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-12 are not patent-eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1- 5 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. 8,294,567 ( Stell ‘567). Re Claim 1: Stell ‘567 discloses a method of monitoring an abnormal condition based on multiple sensors (abstract) , the method comprising: processing sensing signals received from a plurality of sensors configured to detect different objects and outputting sensing data obtained by converting the sensing signals into digital signals (column 5, lines 18-21) ; generating input data to be input to a neural network model by variably adjusting a size of the sensing data (column 7, lines 57-67) ; performing an operation in an analog domain on the input data using the neural network mode l and outputting operation data obtained by converting an operation result into digital data (Figures 4A, 4B; column 8, lines 36-64) ; and outputting a monitoring result obtained by classifying an abnormal condition based on the operation data (Figure 7) . Re Claim 2: Stell ‘567 discloses the method substantially as claimed in supra, including that the plurality of sensors includes at least one of a gas sensor, a pressure sensor, or a temperature sensor (abstract) . Re Claim 3 : Stell ‘567 discloses the method substantially as claimed in supra, including that the outputting sensing data comprises: selecting one of the sensing signals based on a selection control signal; amplifying the selected sensing signal based on an amplification control signal and a gain control signal; and performing digital conversion on the amplified sensing signal to output the sensing data (column 5, lines 18-21; column 8, lines 36-64; column 10, lines 36-66) . Re Claim 4 : Stell ‘567 discloses the method substantially as claimed in supra, including that the selection control signal is a signal configured to perform a control operation to select the sensing signals in time series (column 10, lines 36-66; Figures 8 & 9) . Re Claim 5 : Stell ‘567 discloses the method substantially as claimed in supra, including that the selection control signal is a signal configured to perform a control operation to select any one of the sensing signals based on a predetermined period (column 10, lines 36-66; Figures 8 & 9). Re Claim 8 : Stell ‘567 discloses the method substantially as claimed in supra, including that the outputting a monitoring result comprises: classifying an abnormal condition for each of the objects detected by the plurality of sensors; and outputting the monitoring result based on an abnormal condition classification result for each of the objects (Figures 6, 7) . Re Claim 9 : Stell ‘567 discloses the method substantially as claimed in supra, including that the outputting a monitoring result comprises: determining a category of the abnormal condition based on the abnormal condition classification result for each of the objects; and outputting the monitoring result by classifying a risk level within the determined category of the abnormal condition (Figures 6, 7) . Re Claim 10 : Stell ‘567 discloses the method substantially as claimed in supra, including further comprising assigning a weight to any one of the objects detected by the plurality of sensors and assigning a weight to an abnormal condition classification result for the one weighted object (Figure 6) . Re Claim 11: Device claim 11 is substantially similar to previously rejected method claim 1 and is therefore considered to be rejected here using the same art and rationale. Re Claim 1 2 : Computer-readable medium claim 1 2 is substantially similar to previously rejected method claim 1 and is therefore considered to be rejected here using the same art and rationale. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stell ‘567 as applied to claims 1-5 and 8-12 above, and further in view of U.S. PGPub . 2019/0057304 ( Mathuriya et al. ‘304 ). Re Claim 6: Stell ‘567 discloses the method substantially as claimed in supra, with the exception of including that the generating input data comprises accumulating the sensing data to correspond to a number of bits enabled within a maximum resolution based on an enable signal that specifies the number of bits, and generating the input data having an output resolution corresponding to the number of bits. Mathuriya et al. ‘304 disclose generating input data corresponding to a number of bits corresponding to a resolution (paragraphs [0022, 0074, 0083, 0088]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method of Stell ‘567, in view of the teachings of Mathuriya et al. ‘304 , to include the generation of data within a requisite number of bits for the basic reason of combining known methods to yield the predictable result of an increase to computational efficiency of the neural network ( Mathuriya et al. ‘304 : paragraph [0022]) Re Claim 6: Stell ‘567 in view of Mathuriya et al. ‘304 discloses the method substantially as claimed in supra, including that the outputting operation data comprises: converting the input data into an input value in the analog domain; performing a convolution operation in the analog domain on the input value using a plurality of SRAM operators; and outputting the operation data obtained by converting an analog convolution result, which is an output value of the operation, into data in the digital domain ( Mathuriya et al. ‘304: abstract; paragraphs [0023-0025]) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References B-E cited on PTO-892 are included as being relevant to the field of invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6039 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Anita Coupe can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3614 . 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. Lindsay Maguire 3/20/26 /LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619