CTNF 18/928,815 CTNF 81295 DETAILED ACTION In the response to this office action, the examiner respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting this application. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 states “a signal sensor unit configured to measure… and include one or more signal sensors” which would clearer as (and consistent with the wording of claim 3) “a signal sensor unit configured to measure… and including one or more signal sensors” Claims 2-5 are objected as inheriting the problems as above . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1-5 is/are determined to be directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In this instance the claims are to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below: Regarding method claim 1, the claim is to an abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm. The mathematical algorithm including performing processing of reducing a component of a first noise included in measurement data by data partitioned factor analysis as explained below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional steps provided do not add a meaningful limitation to the method, they merely provide additional mathematical processes to achieving the abstract data or are performing simple data gathering. Claim 1 recites, in part, a method of gathering measurement data from a group of sensors and performing partitioned factor analysis to reduce noise. These steps describe the concept of a mathematical formula similar to mathematical calculations such as calculating the difference between local and average data values which correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, see In re Abele . All of these concepts relate to practices in which information is manipulated and calculation are made through mathematical correlations. The concept described in claim 1 is not meaningfully different than those mathematical calculations found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in claim 1 of performing mathematical calculations based on received audio signals is an abstract idea. Additionally, This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Also, the claim does 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, the additional element of using a generic sensor units l to perform the determining step amounts to no more than mere data gathering using generic components. Also the processing unit’s make up is generic and not expressly mentioned in the specification. Dependent claims 2-5, when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Claims 2-11 only further defined the calculations made. Claims 1-5 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by TDK Corp (JP 2022044224 A) (herein TDK, see copy provided by applicant with translation in IDS of 02/27/25) . Regarding claim 1, TDK discloses a measurement apparatus comprising: a signal sensor unit (21 of figure 1, or 21-1 to 21-N of figure 16) configured to measure a measurement signal (output of 21) in which a target signal and first noise are mixed (paragraph [0008]) and detect a first noise signal (output of 22-1) of which a level of a component of the target signal is lower than a predetermined value and which includes the first noise (paragraph [0062]), and include one or more signal sensors (at least 21 and 22-1); and a processing unit (11) performing processing of reducing a component of the first noise included in measurement data by data partitioned factor analysis (paragraph [0070]-[0074]) on the basis of the measurement data that is data of the measurement signal measured by the signal sensor unit and control data that is data of the first noise signal measured by the signal sensor unit (paragraphs [0070] to [0074]). Regarding claim 2, TDK discloses wherein the processing unit performs preprocessing of emphasizing a component to be reduced from the measurement signal with respect to the control data before the data partitioned factor analysis (via 41, paragraph [0042], step S21 of figure 3). Regarding claim 3, TDK discloses further comprising: a reference sensor unit configured to measure a second noise signal including second noise and including one or more reference sensors (22-2 to 22-M), wherein the processing unit performs processing of reducing a component of the second noise included in the measurement data on the basis of the second noise signal measured by the reference sensor unit before the data partitioned factor analysis (paragraphs [0022], [0070]-[0074], the reference signals are measured with a plurality of (M) reference sensors "22-M" including the noise signal in order to be used in the noise component extraction unit "41" afterwards for carrying out the factor analysis according step S51, Fig. 15). Regarding claim 4, TDK discloses wherein the reference sensor unit is configured to measure a third noise signal including third noise (many different noises may exist paragraph [0020]), and the processing unit performs processing of reducing a component of the third noise included in the control data on the basis of the third noise signal measured by the reference sensor unit before the data partitioned factor analysis (paragraphs [0022], [0070]-[0074], the reference signals are measured with a plurality of (M) reference sensors "22-M" including the noise signal in order to be used in the noise component extraction unit "41" afterwards for carrying out the factor analysis according step S51, Fig. 15). Regarding claim 5, TDK discloses wherein at least one of the reference sensors included in the reference sensor unit is the same kind of sensor with respect to at least one of the signal sensors included in the signal sensor unit (paragraph [0024]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS JOHN SUTHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am -5 pm. 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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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. /DOUGLAS J SUTHERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2695 /PAUL KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695 Application/Control Number: 18/928,815 Page 2 Art Unit: 2695 Application/Control Number: 18/928,815 Page 3 Art Unit: 2695 Application/Control Number: 18/928,815 Page 4 Art Unit: 2695 Application/Control Number: 18/928,815 Page 5 Art Unit: 2695 Application/Control Number: 18/928,815 Page 6 Art Unit: 2695 Application/Control Number: 18/928,815 Page 7 Art Unit: 2695
Prosecution Insights