DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are amended. Claims 5 and 6 are new. Claims 1-6 remain pending and will be examined herein.
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 1-6 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 significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1-6 are drawn to a system (machine) which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claims 1 recites a system comprising the following:
located at respective consumer's places, including
measures gas flowing to a gas appliance,
that detects acceleration,
that accommodates,
that calculates an earthquake index value and an inclination based on a detection result, the earthquake index value indicating a scale of an earthquake, the inclination being based on an initial position, and
that communicates with an outside; and
that receives the earthquake index values and the inclinations.
The concept of calculating an earthquake index value amounts to operations performable in the human mind and, thus, constitute an abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1IJ), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites concepts performed in the human mind, such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, then said limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim limitations are generally directed to an earthquake security system that monitors and received signals from a consumer’s place to determine to output a gas supply stop signal, which is no more than human mental work of the kind set forth in the MPEP. Accordingly, the claims are directed to mental processes and, thus, abstract subject matter. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Independent Claim 1 recites, in part, a gas meter, a measurer, an acceleration sensor, a main body, a calculator, a communicator, and a center server.
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“a gas meter”, “a measurer”, “an acceleration sensor”, “a main body”, “a calculator”, “a communicator”, and “a center server”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (measures, detects, calculates, communicates, receives). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 6, 20, 24, 29, 30 indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
The above claim, as a whole, is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Dependent Claims:
Each of these steps of the dependent claims 2-6 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claim 1 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements already analyzed in the expected manner.
Regarding Claim 2
Claim 2 sets forth:
determines priority rankings of recovery work based on the earthquake index values and the inclinations.
Such a recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea of calculating an earthquake index value, which amounts to operations performable in the human mind and is a Mental Process. While the claim does set forth the additional limitation of “wherein the center server”, “of the gas meters”, this recitation is similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
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.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0054997, Sakata, et al., hereinafter Sakata is hereby withdrawn pursuant to the remarks and amendments filed on February 26, 2026.
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.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 2-4 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0054997, Sakata, et al., hereinafter Sakata in view of CN Patent Application Number CN 118715422A, Yamashita, et al., hereinafter Yamashita is hereby withdrawn pursuant to the remarks and amendments filed on February 26, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that any alleged judicial exception in claim 1 is integrated into a practical application and amounts to significantly more than any judicial exception itself.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). (Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements of “a gas meter”, “a measurer”, “an acceleration sensor”, “a main body”, “a calculator”, “a communicator”, and “a center server”. The elements in each of these independent claims are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., “a gas meter”, “a measurer”, “an acceleration sensor”, “a main body”, “a calculator”, “a communicator”, and “a center server”), such that the claims are directed to utilizing general purpose computer components (Application Specification [0006], [0020], [0024], [0029], and [0030])). As such, the limitations amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As a result, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, and the claims are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Thus, the claims do not recite additional limitations that integrate the exception into a Practical Application.
As recited above, the above-recited limitations are directed to calculating an earthquake index value. This arrangement amounts to operations performable in the human mind and, thus, constitute an abstract idea. Such concepts have been considered ineligible Mental Processes by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)). Examiner submits that the abstract idea does not read on the entirety of the inventive concept — specifically on “a gas meter”, “a measurer”, “an acceleration sensor”, “a main body”, “a calculator”, “a communicator”, and “a center server”. However, the use of electronic means for performing the abstract idea is not enough to overcome Step 2A Prong 1 (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 FED. REG. 4 (January 7, 2019) at p. 8 footnote 54 further citing Intellectual Ventures | LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316-18 (Fed. Cir. 2016) where the electronic implementation of human activity was not adequate to overcome Step 2A Prong 1). Examiner agrees that the additional elements that the applicant asserts are not a Mental Process and are instead analyzed under prong 2 and step 2B as additional elements to the abstract idea.
Accordingly, it does not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SEISMIC SENSOR AND THRESHOLD ADJUSTING METHOD (US 20170003406 A1) teaches seismic sensor is operated in a power-saving mode and a measuring mode in which the power consumption is larger than that of the power-saving mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amber Misiaszek whose telephone number is 571-270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-6:00PM (EST).
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, Fonya Long can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/AMBER A MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682