DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4 and 6 are pending. Claim 5 is cancelled.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to Taiwanese Patent Application No. 111124776, filed on 7/1/2022.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/2/26, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ‘claim 1 recites a feature "determining that positions of the target sequence corresponding to the difference values greater than the upper limit value have discontinuous conditions" which is NOT merely analyzing data or gathering data and CANNOT be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ (pages 4-5).
It is respectfully submitted that no evidence or reasoned argument is presented as to why these limitations cannot be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper and Applicant’s statement is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claimed features may be considered as a whole technical solution and Applicant explains the algorithm in detail and states that ‘The above technical solution utilizes two moving average operations with two different widths of moving windows, therefore, it can reduce short-term value fluctuation, and can hence highlight the long-term trend of value changing. Since the technical solution must be achieved by using two moving average operations with two different widths of moving windows, it should NOT be deemed as simple data collection or simple data gathering. Furthermore, apparently, it CANNOT be easily calculated by a human using a pen and paper’ and indicates that the algorithm is not simple data collection or gathering and cannot be calculated by a human using pen and paper (pages 5-9).
It is respectfully submitted that the analysis algorithm described is considered an abstract algorithm and not a ‘technical solution’ as the term ‘technical solution’ is understood under the current USPTO guidance for 35 U.S.C. § 101. As explained below in the current rejection, data gathering is an additional insignificant claim element and not considered part of the abstract algorithm. Furthermore, no evidence or reasoned argument is presented as to why the limitations described cannot be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. It is noted, for example, that Fig. 9 (page 8) shows approximately 84 data points and it is entirely possible for a human to perform 84 calculations or to combine/average smaller selections of a numerical sequence of 84 values. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ‘by evaluating the long-term trend of value changing represented by the difference sequence, which is obtained from two moving average operations with two different widths of moving windows, discontinuous "jump point" condition of the target sequence may be precisely located’ (page 9).
It is respectfully submitted that improving the precision of jump point locations is merely an improvement to an abstract idea and eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) as cited in MPEP 2106.04, i.e. an improvement to the abstract idea itself (determining the jump point location) is still merely an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ‘The identified technical solution in amended claim 1 can impose at least meaningful limits’ and cites ‘reduce short-term value fluctuation’ and ‘highlight the long-term trend of value changing’ and states that ‘Based on the above discussion, the currently amended claim 1 is believed to recite an additional element imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, which is believed to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and integrate the judicial exception into a practical application’ (page 10).
It is respectfully submitted that while reducing short-term values fluctuations and highlighting the long-term trend may illustrate improvements due to the claimed algorithm, such improvements are merely the result of an improved abstract algorithm and not considered significantly more than the abstract idea (see above). It is also noted that these features are not considered ‘additional elements’ — additional elements could include, for example, data gathering or linking the exception to a particular technology. Furthermore, no evidence or reasoned argument is presented as to why any additional elements may amount to significantly more. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding the dependent claims (page 11) is moot given the continued rejection of independent claim 1.
For at least these reasons, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea (mental process) of processing data to judge whether an abnormality exists. Note that some of the steps involved may also be interpreted as abstract mathematical processes, e.g. obtaining an average.
Claim 1 recites a fault detection method, i.e. a process, which is a statutory category of invention. The claim recites:
the total difference values are obtained by summing up a plurality of difference values between the corresponding original sequence and a corresponding average value of the standard sequence
performing a first moving average operation on the target sequence to establish a first moving average sequence;
performing a second moving average operation on the target sequence to establish a second moving average sequence;
performing a difference operation between the first moving average sequence and the second moving average sequence to obtain a difference sequence, the difference sequence comprises a plurality of difference values;
setting an upper limit value; and
when one of the difference values is greater than the upper limit value, determining that the target sequence is abnormal and determining that positions of the target sequence
corresponding to the difference values greater than the upper limit value have discontinuous conditions, i.e. under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations comprise a mental process involving analyzing data (sequence data) to decide if there is an abnormality based on a comparison and determining that a sequence of values are discontinuous that may be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea (mental/mathematical processes), see MPEP 2106.04(a).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, i.e. receiving a target sequence, the target sequence comprises a plurality of total difference values between a plurality of original sequences and a standard sequence (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)) and the original sequences are associated with at least one parameter variable indicating a temperature of an processing equipment for annealing when manufacturing a plurality of targets and wherein the processing equipment is a temperature control box having an annealing temperature indicated by the parameter variable and operating based on the target sequence (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)) does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, receiving a target sequence, the target sequence comprises a plurality of total difference values between a plurality of original sequences and a standard sequence (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)) and the original sequences are associated with at least one parameter variable indicating a temperature of an processing equipment for annealing when manufacturing a plurality of targets and wherein the processing equipment is a temperature control box having an annealing temperature indicated by the parameter variable and operating based on the target sequence (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)) does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are not considered significantly more. Considering the additionally elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Note that processing equipment for manufacturing a plurality of targets is well-understood, routine and conventional, see for example Tranh U.S. Patent No. 5990558 [col. 6 lines 15-30], Mimata et al. U.S. Patent No. 4890780 [col. 2 lines 14-39], John et al. U.S. Patent No. 6461925 [col. 9 lines 3-44], Zhou et al. U.S. Patent No. 5780358 [col. 3 lines 51-63], Masuda et al. U.S. Patent No. 6245190 [col. 1], and Nakashima et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20010038783 [0004-0005]. Also note that annealing is well-understood, routine and conventional, see Ogata U.S. Patent No. 4845055 [col. 4], Yu et al. U.S. Patent No. 6689671 [cols. 7 and 9] and Feigelson et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20160233108 [0044]. Also note that processing equipment comprising a temperature control box having an annealing temperature indicated by the parameter variable and operating based on a sequence is well-understood, routine and conventional, see for example Lyding et al. U.S. Patent No. 5872387 [particularly col. 6], Martin et al. U.S. Patent No. 9716203 [particularly col. 25], Bronner et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20100025811 [0037-0041] and Shaeffer et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110299317 [0236-0243].
Claim 2 recites that the windows used in the abstract mental/mathematical process are not of equal width. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites further details of how the abstract moving average mental/mathematical process is performed. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites further details of how the abstract moving average mental/mathematical process is performed. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites that a numerical variation of the abstract difference sequence is smaller than a numerical variation of the abstract target sequence data. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Note that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
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 BERNARD G. LINDSAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on (571)272-4105. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call the examiner or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/BERNARD G LINDSAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights