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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 06/04/2026 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1 at line 33, the term “the search process” has no previous recitation in the claims. The Examiner recommends changing the term to “a search process”. Appropriate correction is required.
Status of the Claims
The claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1-5 and added claims 6-8.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The amendment filed July 15, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 are currently pending in the Application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 23rd, 2026.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 mental process and mathematical concepts rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner has carefully considered applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the information processing device according to amended claim 1 gathers raw data from a vehicle that includes information indicating an amount of slippage of a torque limiter provided in the vehicle, then processed the acquired raw data to determine whether the data indicates that a failure of the torque limiter is likely to occur and provides an estimate of when the failure may occur, therefore applicant argues amended claim 1 is not merely “estimating” information in the abstract, but is directed to a specific application of the data for determining the remaining useful life of a torque limit provided in the vehicle. Applicant additionally argues the subject matter of amended claim 1 amounts to more than a mere abstract idea because the claim expressly requires the acquisition of the raw data from the sensor mounted on a vehicle via a communication network when the information processing device has determined that a failure of the torque limiter is predicted to occur. Applicant additionally argues amended claim 1 requires the coordinated operation of specific system components across different devices and data sources to determine when a failure of a torque limiter is predicted to occur, and then transmitting a notification to a user terminal indicating the predicted failure of the torque limiter, which applicant submits is not practically performed in the human mind and instead define a concrete system implementation using identified hardware components and machine-based flow. Applicant additionally argues even if any aspect of the amended claim were viewed as involving a mental process, amended claim 1 as a whole integrates any such concept into a practical application because amended claim 1 does not merely gather data and analyze it on generic hardware, but instead recites a specific technical implementation in which slippage data of a torque limiter is transmitted from a vehicle-side communication unit, and a predicted time failure of the torque limiter is calculated, and the predicted failure and estimated remaining life of the torque limited is provided via a notification to user terminal, which applicant argues imposes meaningful constraints on the claim and define a particular technological application, rather than a mere instruction to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer (See Applicant’s Remarks, pages 6-9).
The Examiner has considered such arguments; however, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the claims remain directed to a judicial exception—specifically, to mathematical concepts and mental processes. The claimed steps of acquiring original data collected over a predetermined period, extracting data used to calculate an index value from the original data, a first step of calculating a relative frequency distribution of the original data for each of the features included in the original data, a second step of setting a plurality of time windows for clipping data in such a manner that the sum of periods of all the time windows is shorter than the predetermined period, a beginning and end time of each window of the plurality of time windows is set so that the respective time windows do not overlap, a third step of clipping data from the original data according to the time windows, a fourth step of calculating the relative frequency distribution of extracted data obtained by combining the data clipped according to the time windows for each of the features, a fifth step of calculating an error between the relative frequency distribution of the original data and the relative frequency distribution of the extracted data, a sixth step of determining whether the index value is equal to or greater than a breakage determination threshold, a seventh step of transmitting a failure warning to a user terminal via the communication network, the failure warning indicating that a failure is predicted to occur, and wherein after the first step is performed, a trial from the second step to the fifth step being repeatedly performed by changing settings of the time windows, and the processing device performing the search process to extract the extracted data with the error equal to or less than a threshold reflect data collection, evaluation, analysis, and reporting of results—activities that include mental processes and mathematical concepts, as discussed in the rejection below, including applying statistical methods to evaluate characteristics of datasets and compare distributions using established mathematical techniques. Applicant’s characterization of the claim determining a remaining useful life, calculating a predicted time of failure, and providing the estimated remaining life to a user terminal is not reflected in the language of the claims. Performing these steps using an information processing device, sensor mounted on a vehicle, torque limiter, and processor merely implements the recited data acquisition, analysis, and reporting using the claimed hardware and does not, by itself, transform the nature of the claim into a technological process. Any alleged technical improvement is not shown in the steps of the claims, which merely describe generic data collection, analysis, reporting operations, and mathematical calculations performed by the recited information processing device, sensor mounted on a vehicle, torque limiter, and processor. While applicant argues that the claims improve information processing systems by reducing unnecessary data computations, any such benefit is directed to the collection and evaluation of data and the generation of results rather than to an improvement in the functioning of the information processing device, sensor mounted on a vehicle, torque limiter, and processor, or other computer functionality. Applicant’s reliance on the recited system components and machine-based information flow does not establish that the claim integrates the judicial exception into practical application, because the recited sensor, communication network, processor, and user terminal merely acquire the data, perform the recited analysis, and communicate the resulting information. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the amended claims do not include additional elements that meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into practical application or that amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is therefore maintained for claims 1-8.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed towards an apparatus.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1. An information processing device configured to (i) acquire original data collected over a predetermined period from a sensor mounted on a vehicle equipped with a torque limiter, the original data being acquired from the sensor via a communication network and including data on an amount of slippage of the torque limiter, and (ii) extract data used to calculate an index value from the original data, the index value indicating a magnitude of damage accumulated in the torque limiter, the information processing device comprising:
a processor configured to perform a first step of calculating a relative frequency distribution of the original data for each of the features included in the original data,
a second step of setting a plurality of time windows for clipping data of a partial period of the original data so that a sum of periods of all the time windows is shorter than the predetermined period, the plurality of time windows;
and a beginning time and an ending time of each window of the plurality of time windows is set so that the respective time windows do not overlap,
a third step of clipping data from the original data according to the time windows,
a fourth step of calculating the relative frequency distribution of extracted data obtained by combining the data clipped according to the time windows for each of the features,
a fifth step of calculating an error between the relative frequency distribution of the original data and the relative frequency distribution of the extracted data,
a sixth step of determining whether the index value is equal to or greater than a breakage determination threshold,
and a seventh step of transmitting a failure warning to user terminal via the communication network, the failure warning indicating that a failure is predicted to occur in response to determining that the index value is greater than the breakage determination threshold,
wherein after the first step is performed, a trial from the second step to the fifth step being repeatedly performed by changing settings of the time windows, and the processing device performing the search process to extract the extracted data with the error equal to or less than a threshold.
The method in claim 1, specifically the limitations “…to calculate an index value indicating a magnitude of damage accumulated…”, “a first step of calculating a relative frequency distribution of the original data for each of the features included in the original data”, “a fourth step of calculating the relative frequency distribution of extracted data obtained by combining the data clipped according to the time windows for each of the features”, and “and a fifth step of calculating an error between the relative frequency distribution of the original data and the relative frequency distribution of the extracted data” emphasized above, recite a mathematical concept and, therefore, an abstract idea. As is evident from the specification, the claimed steps highlighted above are mathematical calculations and data analysis techniques, including calculating relative frequency distributions of data and calculating an error between distributions. These steps involve applying known statistical methods to evaluate characteristics of datasets and to compare distributions using established mathematical techniques. The process further includes selecting portions of data through the use of time windows, extracting subsets of data, and iteratively adjusting the selection based on the calculated error to satisfy a threshold condition. This constitutes an optimization process that evaluates and selects data based on mathematical relationships rather than by implementing any technological improvement to a computer or system. The grouping of “mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PEG is not limited to formulas or equations, and in fact specifically includes “mathematical calculations” as an exemplar of a mathematical concept. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus the claim recites a concept that falls into the “mathematical concept” group of abstract ideas.
The method in claim 1, specifically the limitation “…extract data used to calculate an index value from the original data…”, “a second step of setting a plurality of time windows for clipping data of a partial period of the original data in such a manner that a sum of periods of all the time windows is shorter than the predetermined period”, “and a beginning time and an ending time of each window of the plurality of time windows is set so that the respective time windows do not overlap”, “a third step of clipping data from the original data according to the time windows”, “a sixth step of determining whether the index value is equal to or greater than a breakage determination threshold…in response to determining that the index value is greater than the breakage determination threshold”, and “wherein after the first step is performed, a trial from the second step to the fifth step being repeatedly performed by changing settings of the time windows, and the processing device performing the search process to extract the extracted data with the error equal to or less than a threshold” emphasized above, are mental processes that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, are abstract ideas. They merely consist of extracting data, setting a plurality of time windows, setting a beginning and end time of each window, clipping data, determining whether the index value is equal to or greater than a breakage determination threshold, and repeatedly performing changing settings of the time windows. This is equivalent to a person mentally reviewing the dataset, limiting and selecting portions of data, comparing the index value to the breakage threshold, comparing characteristics of the selected data to the overall dataset, and iteratively adjusting the selection until a desired result is achieved.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the abstract “idea”).
Claim 1. An information processing device configured to (i) acquire original data collected over a predetermined period from a sensor mounted on a vehicle equipped with a torque limiter, the original data being acquired from the sensor via a communication network and including data on an amount of slippage of the torque limiter, and (ii) extract data used to calculate an index value from the original data, the index value indicating a magnitude of damage accumulated in the torque limiter, the information processing device comprising:
a processor configured to perform a first step of calculating a relative frequency distribution of the original data for each of the features included in the original data,
a second step of setting a plurality of time windows for clipping data of a partial period of the original data so that a sum of periods of all the time windows is shorter than the predetermined period, the plurality of time windows;
and a beginning time and an ending time of each window of the plurality of time windows is set so that the respective time windows do not overlap,
a third step of clipping data from the original data according to the time windows,
a fourth step of calculating the relative frequency distribution of extracted data obtained by combining the data clipped according to the time windows for each of the features,
a fifth step of calculating an error between the relative frequency distribution of the original data and the relative frequency distribution of the extracted data,
a sixth step of determining whether the index value is equal to or greater than a breakage determination threshold,
and a seventh step of transmitting a failure warning to user terminal via the communication network, the failure warning indicating that a failure is predicted to occur in response to determining that the index value is greater than the breakage determination threshold,
wherein after the first step is performed, a trial from the second step to the fifth step being repeatedly performed by changing settings of the time windows, and the processing device performing the search process to extract the extracted data with the error equal to or less than a threshold.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The step of “…acquire original data collected over a predetermined period…” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of extra solution activity. The step of “…transmitting a failure warning to user terminal via the communication network, the failure warning indicating that a failure is predicted to occur” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of extra solution activity. The limitations “An information processing device...using a sensor mounted on a vehicle equipped with a torque limiter, the original data being acquired from the sensor via a communication network and including data on an amount of slippage of the torque limiter” and “in a torque limiter, the information processing device comprising: a processor configured” are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The information processing device, sensor mounted on a vehicle, torque limiter, and processor merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment. The information processing device, sensor mounted on a vehicle, torque limiter, and processing device are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the acquiring, extracting, performing, calculating, setting, clipping, determining, transmitting, and changing steps. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation(s) of “An information processing device...using a sensor mounted on a vehicle equipped with a torque limiter, the original data being acquired from the sensor via a communication network and including data on an amount of slippage of the torque limiter” and “in a torque limiter, the information processing device comprising: a processor configured” is/are merely means to apply the exception and do not amount to “significantly more”, as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “…acquire original data collected over a predetermined period…” and “…transmitting a failure warning to user terminal via the communication network, the failure warning indicating that a failure is predicted to occur” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the acquiring, extracting, performing, calculating, setting, clipping, determining, transmitting, and changing steps are performed using anything other than a conventional computer. See also MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures |, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TL! Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and O/P Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-8 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more, such as the limitations in claim 2 that amount to insignificant extra solution activity using a similar analysis applied to claim 1 above.
As such, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JEWEL ASHLEY KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5542. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JEWEL A KUNTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights