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 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, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) processing input digital signal, filtering the signal and determine alarm information. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it is a system that uses processor which derives data, assess data, filter data into an alarm information, and determine and generate alarm information similar to In re Grams, 888 F. 2d 835, 12 USPQ 2d 1824 (Fed. Cir. 1989) which was directed to diagnosing an abnormal condition and found to be patent ineligible. The claim(s) does/do not include when the claims are considered as a whole, there is no element or combination of elements additional elements that are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims fail to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the processor itself, and/or meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment (i.e. there is no structural relationship between the abstract idea or processing data and determining alarm information). The use of a processor is merely a generic processor. Therefore, because there are no meaningful limitations in the claim to transform the exception into patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the exception itself, the claim is rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-10, 12, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcome 101 rejection set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner finds that the current claim amendments still do not overcome the 101 rejection. The claim(s) does/do not include when the claims are considered as a whole, there is no element or combination of elements additional elements that are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims fail to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the processor itself, and/or meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment (i.e. there is no structural relationship between the abstract idea or processing data and determining alarm information). The use of a processor is merely a generic processor. The amendments only add another determining step and not a meaningful limitations in the claim to transform the exception into patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the exception itself, the claim is rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 JON ERIC C MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-3107. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 830AM-530PM CST.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/J.C.M/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/JON ERIC C MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights