DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 17, 2023 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 12, and 18 have been amended. Claims 5, 8, and 13 are canceled. Claim 19 has been added. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, and 14-19 are presented for examination. (It is noted that the phrase “subject to the DDs” in the “solving…” limitation of claim 1 should be underlined since it was added with the current amendment. In the interest of compact prosecution, the amendment will continue to be examined, as seen below.)
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 17, 2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant’s claim amendments and persuasive arguments (presented on pages 7-10 of Applicant’s response) have overcome the rejection.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant argues, “Notably, claim 1 has been amended to positively recite routing the commuter vehicles. Also, claim 19 has been added to recite taking computational advantage of the structure of DDs allowing parallel computation. No new subject matter has been added. Support for the amendment can be found throughout the specification and original claims. The claimed invention is inextricably tied to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. Further, amended independent claim 1 does not describe an abstract concept, or a concept similar to those found by the courts to be abstract, such as a mental process or a mathematical relationship.” (Pages 10-11 of Applicant’s response) First, within the scope of the claims, routing the commuter vehicles simply transmits assignment information. There is no active control of the vehicles, for example. The route is just a plan for the commuter vehicles. These details are part of the abstract ideas. Second, it is noted that claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for presenting new matter. Regarding the use of parallel computation, no specific technical details are provided. The use of parallel computation is generally applied to the abstract ideas and utilizes generic processing operations. Third, the claims largely present operations that may be performed by a human user (mentally and/or with pen and paper), constitute the organization of human activity, and incorporate mathematical concepts (as explained in the rejection). The additional elements are only generally applied to the abstract ideas, are utilized as mere tools to implement the abstract ideas, and are used at a high level.
On page 11 of the response, “Applicants submit that the human mind is not equipped at least, for example, to perform the features of communicate with the CVs to monitor operation status of each of the CVs," as recited in amended independent claim 1.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Aside from the generally applied additional elements recited at a high level in the claims, a human can communicate with someone with knowledge about the CV to request an operation status update. The claims do not present specific technical details as to how this is performed.
Applicant submits that, like the eligible claim in the icon example of Example 37 of the USPTO § 101 examples, “amended independent claim 1 recites similar feature of ‘communicate with the CVs to monitor operation status of each of the CVs,’ which cannot be practically performed in human mind.” (Page 13 of Applicant’s response) Again, aside from the generally applied additional elements recited at a high level in the claims, a human can communicate with someone with knowledge about the CV to request an operation status update. The claims do not present specific technical details as to how this is performed. Additionally, the eligible claim in the icon example of Example 37 is about detecting icon usage by a particular user and then rearranging the icons in the interface that the user is utilizing, which is not analogous to Applicant’s claims.
Applicant submits that the claims integrate the abstract ideas in a manner that prevents fuel wastage of the CVs (pages 13-14 of Applicant’s response). The Examiner points out that the claimed invention presents a more theoretical approach to how passengers can use CVs in a manner that expends less energy. There is no guarantee that energy is actually conserved since the invention does not physically control energy usage, for example. The invention may optimize itineraries; however, this optimization only yields a theoretical evaluation of possible areas in which energy usage may be reduced. There is no actual practical application necessarily controlled, guaranteed, and accomplished in the real world.
On page 14 of the response, Applicant asserts, “While the methods of optimization and assigning the CVs to each passenger based on the optimization is known, mere use of these parameters does not make claims of the instant application routine or conventional.” These details are directed to the abstract ideas and not to any specific integration of the additional elements. Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility test evaluates if the additional elements themselves are integrated in a manner that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 is a newly-presented claim and it recites “wherein the grouping program constructs and computes the DDs for each of the target locations of the passengers on parallel processors using one processor for each target location to reduce computational time and memory requirement for generating the assignment information on feasible groupings of passengers that can reach the target location within the given arrival time windows of the passengers in the groups.”
Applicant’s original disclosure does not provide support for the details introduced in claim 19. Applicant’s Specification states that “many of the operations can be performed in parallel or concurrently” (Spec: ¶ 33). Paragraph 45 of Applicant’s Specification also states that the system may include “one or more processor 320” and paragraph 61 refers to “processors” (plural). There is no explanation in the Specification that multiple processors perform the operations in parallel. Even if, arguably, the combination of the descriptions in paragraphs 33 and 45 were interpreted as sufficient to generally imply that multiple operations are performed in parallel through the use of multiple processors, a “parallel processor” is a term of art and implies a particular type of processing device that includes multiple independent cores on a single chip. This concept is not referenced, either explicitly or implicitly, in Applicant’s Specification, yet new claim 19 recites the use of “parallel processors,” which (as a term of art) is not supported by Applicant’s original disclosure.
Furthermore, Applicant’s original disclosure does not describe the use of “one or more processors” as “using one processor for each target location,” much less such that the use of the parallel processors using one processor for each location is “to reduce computational time and memory requirement for generating…” Paragraph 57 of Applicant’s Specification states, “This method can greatly improve the calculation speed of the grouping process, providing less power consumptions of a computer system including a processor/processors.” Paragraph 166 of the Specification also explains, “This therefore indicates that an operator might try to solve the problem with relatively large time windows, but then decrease this exibility should solutions need to be obtained is less computational time.” However, the benefit is not necessarily described as arising from the use of parallel processors per se (as opposed to simply automating operations through the use of one or more processors). Additionally, the original disclosure does not reference the reduction of a memory requirement. While the Specification explains that “the use of a commuter vehicle assigning method or system described in the present disclosure can reduce central processing unit usage and power consumption” (Spec: ¶ 168), there is no mention of the reduction of a memory requirement.
Therefore, claim 19 presents new matter.
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 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed “generally to system and method for scheduling multi-modal transportation network, and more particularly to system and method for assigning commuter vehicles (CVs) in a multi-modal transportation network having the CVs and fixed schedule vehicles to passengers” (Spec: ¶ 1) without significantly more.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes – The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Apparatus (claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, and 14-19)
Independent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claim 1] A system for routing commuter vehicles (CVs) that take passengers from intermediate locations to target locations in a multi modal transportation network represented by routes of the CVs and fixed schedule vehicle, comprising:
receive data of itinerary requests from the passengers, wherein the data of the itinerary requests include initial locations, the target locations, departure times from the initial locations, and arrival time windows including deadlines at the target locations; and
monitor operation status of each of the CVs, wherein the operation status includes locations of the CVs and a number of available seats in each of the CVs;
formulating an optimization problem based on the data of the itinerary requests so as to determine groups of passengers based on identical target locations of the passengers and to determine start times on the fixed schedule vehicles and start times of the CVs from the intermediate locations for the passengers; constructs and computes decision diagrams (DDs) for each of the target locations of the passengers to determine the groups of passengers, wherein each of the DDs is constructed based on a number of the passengers traveling to a common target location, the arrival time windows of the passengers and a seat capacity of each of the CVs, wherein the optimization problem is formulated to minimize a linear combination of a sum of total travel times of all the passengers and a number of groups of the passengers
solving the optimization problem subject to the DDs to generate a set of solutions for a set of weighting factors, and combinations of total travel times of the passengers and the number of groups of the passengers, wherein the set of solutions defines the groups of passengers and the start times on the fixed schedule vehicles and the start times of CVs from the intermediate location for the passengers;
assigning a set of CVs from the CVs to the groups and routes for the CVs based on the monitored operation status of each of the CVs;
generating assignment information of the assigned set of CVs based on a solution of the generated set of solutions, wherein the assignment information includes the assigned set of CVs to the groups, the routes assigned to the set of CVs, the start times of the assigned set of CVs from the intermediate locations; and
routing the CVs according to the assignment information.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. A human user can perform the aforementioned data gathering, analyses, and transmission of information (mentally and/or with pen and paper). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related “generally to system and method for scheduling multi-modal transportation network, and more particularly to system and method for assigning commuter vehicles (CVs) in a multi-modal transportation network having the CVs and fixed schedule vehicles to passengers” (Spec: ¶ 1), which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of managing interactions between people (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Various calculating steps are recited throughout the claims (such as solving the optimization problem) and these are examples of mathematical concepts.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
[Claim 1] A system comprising:
an interface configured to:
receive data of itinerary requests from input devices of the passengers via a wireless network or a wire network, and
communicate with the CVs to monitor operation status of each of the CVs;
a memory to store the received data of the itinerary requests and computer executable programs including a grouping program, a route-search program, an operation route map program of the CVs, and a commuter assigning program; and
a processor configured to perform the computer executable programs in connection with the memory, wherein the grouping program performs certain operations of the claim;
assigning a set of CVs from the CVs to the groups and routes for the CVs by performing the commuter assigning program;
routing the CVs according to the assignment information by transmitting the assignment information to the assigned set of CVs via the interface.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 34, 45, 54).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claim 2] wherein the optimization problem is formulated to minimize a linear combination of a sum of the total travel times of all the passengers and the number of the groups, wherein the combination is performed using a weighting factor.
[Claim 3] wherein the optimization problem includes constraints to ensure that passengers reach destination within the arrival time windows of the passengers and ensure that a number of passengers in each of the groups is smaller than the number of available seats in the CVs, wherein the route-search and operation route map programs provide respective travel times for the CVs, wherein the constraints ensure that a number of CVs operating simultaneously is smaller than a total number of available CVs.
[Claim 4] wherein the groups are assigned the routes and the intermediate locations, wherein the routes respectively reach the target locations of the groups from the intermediate locations, wherein the groups are assigned the start times at the intermediate locations to allow the passengers of the groups to switch from the fixed schedule vehicles to the CVs at the intermediate locations and reach the target locations within the arrival time windows.
[Claim 6] sorts the passengers in ascending order of deadlines in the arrival time windows.
[Claim 7] wherein when an itinerary request of a passenger includes a preferred option that indicates a minimum total cost to be paid by the passenger, the passenger is assigned to a group that satisfies another constrain for minimizing a sum of costs of a scheduled vehicle and an assigned CV.
[Claim 9] stores fares and time tables of the fixed schedule vehicles that stop at the intermediate locations.
[Claim 10] transmitting an itinerary to each of the passengers with a departure time of a fixed schedule vehicle accessible from an initial location, one of the intermediate locations and one of the assigned CVs so that each of the passengers reaches a corresponding intermediate location prior to a start time of the one of the assigned CVs.
[Claim 11] wherein the optimization problem is formulated to minimize a linear combination of the total travel times and an energy to be consumed by the CVs, a total fare to be paid by each of the passengers, a linear combination of a total travel time and the total fare or a linear combination of the total travel time and an energy to be consumed by the fixed schedule vehicles.
[Claim 12] wherein the itinerary includes a total fare to be paid by each of the passengers, and wherein the optimization problem is solved to satisfy the total fare as one of constraints.
[Claim 14] receives information on traffic conditions including traffic jams, traffic accidents and constructions and searches the routes of the groups so as to avoid the traffic jams.
[Claim 15] solves the optimization problem based on one of constraints of the total travel times of the passengers, an energy used by the assigned CVs in transporting the passengers and a linear combination of the total travel times and the energy used in transporting the passengers.
[Claim 16] wherein the passengers assigned to an identical group share an identical CV.
[Claim 17] wherein each of the passengers has a total travel time.
[Claim 18] transmit each passenger information as to how much a fare of a fixed scheduled vehicle is reduced if a passenger chooses an environment-friendly travel schedule.
[Claim 19] constructs and computes the DDs for each of the target locations of the passengers for generating the assignment information on feasible groupings of passengers that can reach the target location within the given arrival time windows of the passengers in the groups.
The dependent claims further present details of the abstract ideas identified in regard to the independent claims.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. A human user can perform the aforementioned data gathering, analyses, and transmission of information (mentally and/or with pen and paper). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related “generally to system and method for scheduling multi-modal transportation network, and more particularly to system and method for assigning commuter vehicles (CVs) in a multi-modal transportation network having the CVs and fixed schedule vehicles to passengers” (Spec: ¶ 1), which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of managing interactions between people (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Various calculating steps are recited throughout the claims (such as solving the optimization problem) and these are examples of mathematical concepts.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
The dependent claims include the additional elements of their independent claims.
[Claim 1] A system comprising:
an interface configured to:
receive data of itinerary requests from input devices of the passengers via a wireless network or a wire network, and
communicate with the CVs to monitor operation status of each of the CVs;
a memory to store the received data of the itinerary requests and computer executable programs including a grouping program, a route-search program, an operation route map program of the CVs, and a commuter assigning program; and
a processor configured to perform the computer executable programs in connection with the memory, wherein the grouping program performs certain operations of the claim;
assigning a set of CVs from the CVs to the groups and routes for the CVs by performing the commuter assigning program;
routing the CVs according to the assignment information by transmitting the assignment information to the assigned set of CVs via the interface.
[Claim 3] Claim 3 refers to a total number of available CVs stored in the memory.
[Claim 4] Claim 4 recites wherein the groups are assigned the routes and the intermediate locations by performing the route-search program using the operation route map program of the CVs.
[Claim 6] Claim 6 recites wherein the grouping program sorts the passengers in ascending order of deadlines in the arrival time windows.
[Claim 9] Claim 9 recites wherein the memory stores fares and time tables of the fixed schedule vehicles that stop at the intermediate locations.
[Claim 10] Claim 10 recites transmitting, via the interface, an itinerary to each of the passengers.
[Claim 14] Claim 14 recites wherein the interface receives information on traffic conditions on the operation route map program via the network and the route-search program searches the routes of the groups.
[Claim 15] Claim 15 recites wherein the commuter assigning program solves the optimization problem.
[Claim 18] Claim 18 recites wherein the interface is further configured to transmit each passenger information.
[Claim 19] Claim 19 recites wherein the grouping program constructs and computes the DDs for each of the target locations of the passengers on parallel processors using one processor for each target location to reduce computational time and memory requirement for generating the assignment information on feasible groupings of passengers that can reach the target location within the given arrival time windows of the passengers in the groups.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 34, 45, 54).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, and 14-19 are allowed over the prior art of record. The claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 19 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Fowler (US 2015/0206437) in view of König et al. (US 2016/0202079) in view of Liu et al. (US 2016/0320195) in view of Bai et al. (CN 205788751 U, referencing the English translation) most closely address the various concepts recited in each of the independent claims, as seen in the last art rejection of claims 1 and 5 in particular in the Office action dated July 11, 2022. However, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s invention would not have, in light of the teachings of the aforementioned references, found it obvious to create the claimed invention with the level of detail and specific manner of integration of operations as they are presented in independent claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, and 14-19 are deemed to be allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSANNA M DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4:30 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270-5389. 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.
/SUSANNA M. DIAZ/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625A
Prosecution Insights