DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/06/2026 has been entered.
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.
3. Claims 1-2 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to two of the four statutory classes, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “acquiring standard comparison data as well as actual monitoring data of a gravimeter, determining a plurality of difference values between the actual monitoring data and the standard comparison data, determining the presence or absence of an inflection point among the plurality of difference values, correcting the plurality of difference value error in the absence of an inflection point among the plurality of difference value error to obtain corrected first difference values; correcting a difference value error on both sides of the demarcation point respectively in the presence of an inflection point among the plurality of the difference values to obtain corrected second difference values, correcting the gravimeter based on the corrected first difference values and the corrected second difference values to obtain a corrected gravimeter; wherein the correcting the plurality of difference values in the absence of an inflection point among the plurality of difference values, comprises:
correcting the plurality of difference values according to a correction formula in the
absence of an inflection point among the plurality of difference values, wherein the correction formula is
PNG
media_image1.png
78
194
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
202
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” are abstract ideas, as they are directed to a combination of mental process and usage of mathematical concept. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite various “module”, but said limitations are merely recitation of general-purpose processors for implementing the abstract idea. The claims do not improve the functioning of any machines and do not improve other technology. At most, the claims are an improvement in the abstract idea of correcting the gravimeter measurements. However, improved or new abstract ideas are still abstract ideas and therefore not eligible. In short, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite various “module”, but said limitations are merely recitation of general-purpose processors for implementing the abstract idea, that are well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In Response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is directed to correcting the values of the gravimeter. It is an abstract idea since it recites steps that can be done by a combination of mental process, such as determining the presence or absence of an inflection points, and usage of mathematical formula using the acquired data. There is no improvement from the standpoint of practical application, since the claims at most, are an improvement in the abstract idea of correcting the gravimeter values. But as had been stated before, improved or new abstract ideas are still abstract ideas, not eligible, regardless of how specific the abstract ideas may be. For a claim that does not even recite additional elements as to how the gravimeter data are collected, where the gravimeter is being used and in which real life application, the claimed invention also poses significant pre-emption concern (see McRo,837 F.3d 1299, 120 USPQ2d 1091, Id., at 1101, “It is self-evident that genus claims create a greater risk of preemption, thus implicating the primary concern driving 101 jurisprudence). For these reasons, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights