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
This Final office action is in response to the application filed on November 20, 2023 and the amendments to the claims filed on May 13, 2026.
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 23-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 23-46 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 23 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent device Claim 36. Claim 23 recites the limitations of obtaining a data set comprising time-sequential data elements generated by the measurement device, wherein the time-sequential data elements are associated with the uncertainty; and: (a) calculating a statistic of a sub-set of data elements consecutive within the data set; (b) comparing a value of the statistic to a reference value; (c) if the value of the statistic differs from the reference value by less than a threshold amount, then: modifying the sub-set by appending to the sub-set at least one additional data element from the data set which is subsequent to the sub-set; and, repeating steps (a) to (c) for the modified sub-set of data elements; (d) if the value of the statistic differs from the reference value by more than said threshold amount, then: outputting the sub-set collectively as a sample set of data elements generated by the measurement device for representing the uncertainty in the measurements made by the measurement device; and (e) calculating, based on the sample set, a representation of a probability distribution of the measurements made by the measurement device to represent the uncertainty, repeating steps (a) to (d) in respect of a subsequent sub-set of data elements consecutive within the data set.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as mathematical concepts. Sampling data from a measurement device for representing uncertainty in measurements made by the measurement device recites mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The measuring device in Claim 23 and memory unit, processor, and measuring device of Claim 36 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The calculating, comparing, and repeating steps in Claims 23 and 36 appears to be just software. Claim 36 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 measuring device in Claim 23 and memory unit, processor, and measuring device of Claim 36 and calculating, comparing, and repeating steps in Claims 23 and 36. 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 23 and 36 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 specification page 38, lines 25-34 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. 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 23 and 36 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 24-35 and 37-46 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 23 and 36 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 24, 25, and 37 further detail storing the sample set; Claims 26 and 39 defines modifying the subset; Claims 27 and 40 includes further details removal of subset data and repeating steps (a) to (d); Claims 28-30 and 41 further detail constraining the size of the sub-set; Claim 31 further details the statistic calculated in step (a); Claim 32 further defines the reference value; Claims 33, 34 further defines a measurand; Claim 35 add an additional mathematical calculation; Claim 38 further includes transmitting a signal without adding significantly more; Claim 42 positively recites the measurement apparatus without reciting significantly more than the abstract idea; Claims 43-46 further set forth outputting the sub-set 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 24-35 and 37-46 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 23-46 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection of record (Remarks, pages 9-14) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that the claims, “are directed to a specific improvement in the functioning of measurement device and sensor based computing systems” and that, “some examples encode a sample set of data (e.g. measurement data from a measurement device) for transmission from a transmitter to facilitate the decision-making process of the computer system(¶[120]). The aforementioned is a specific improvement to the operation of the measurement apparatus itself, and subsequently leads to improved functioning and decision making” (Remarks, pages 12-14). However, these arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The claims fail to recite any changes or improvements in the actual function of the measurement device or the sensor based computing systems, nor do the claims set forth any actual decision making steps or improvements to decision making steps.
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 LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (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
6/15/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights