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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the amendment filed December 30, 2025. Claims 1, 3-13, 15, 16, and 18 are currently pending, of which claims 1, 9, 13, and 18 have been amended and claims 2, 14, and 17 have been canceled.
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, 3-8, 10-13, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293-94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination” to determine whether there are additional elements that “transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-13, 15, 16, and 18 are directed to a method and a system. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four subject matter categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309.
In Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, the invention relates to a method and a system for improved measurement of the time of passage on a timekeeping line of a race by a competitor.” (par. 3).
Representative claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis):
A method for improved measurement of a time of passage on a timekeeping line of a race by a competitor, the method being implemented by a measurement system comprising at least one image sensor, wherein the method comprises the following consecutive steps:
acquiring electric signals representative of an image of the timekeeping line captured by the image sensor, the electric signals being produced according to optical signals received by the image sensor,
transmitting the electric signals to an image-processing unit,
detecting passage of a timekeeping line by an object,
detecting at least one additional piece of information relating to movement or dimensions of the object to verify that the object corresponds to a competitor,
after the object is verified to correspond to the competitor, transmitting an order by the image-processing unit to a measurement unit in response to the object passing the timekeeping line to measure the time of passage,
measuring the time of passage of said object on the timekeeping line corresponding to an instant of the passage of the object,
transmitting the time of passage measured to a display unit, and
displaying the measured times on the display unit, wherein the detecting of the passage of a timekeeping line by an object and detecting at least one additional piece of information relating to movement or dimensions of the object to verify that the object corresponds to a competitor are performed simultaneously.
The underlined portions of claim 1 generally encompass the abstract idea, with substantially identical features in claims 13. Claims 3-8, 10-12, 15, 16, and 18 further define the abstract idea such as by defining the material provided by and received in response to the various tabs.
Under prong 2, the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of mental processes. The invention encompasses making judgments about whether an object crossing a time keeping line is a competitor and judging when the competitor crossed the time keeping line. Such judgments relate to mental processes. But for the recitation of implementation by a computer system, image processing unit, measurement unit, and processor, nothing in the claimed method or system precludes the recitations from practically being performed in the mind. For example, detecting passage of a timekeeping line by an object, may be done by an observer watching the finish line (or the output of a camera). Detecting at least one additional piece of information relating to movement or dimensions of the object to verify that the object corresponds to a competitor, may be the done by an observer thinking “does the object look like a race participant or something else.” After thinking the object is the competitor, transmitting an order in response to the object passing the timekeeping line to measure the time of passage may be the observer writing down the time or providing input to a timer. Measuring the time of passage of said object on the timekeeping line corresponding to an instant of the passage of the object, may be the observer performing a mental calculation or calculation with pen and paper of the total time or reading a result. In addition, an observer is capable of making the determination of passage of the line by an object and additional information about the object simultaneously. The user may display the measured time by writing it on a piece of paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of recitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Therefore, under prong 2, the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of mental processes.
Under prong 2, the instant claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. While certain physical elements (i.e., elements that are not an abstract idea) are present in the claims, such features do not affect an improvement in any technology or technical field and are recited in generic (i.e., not particular) ways. Similarly, the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of these physical elements. The claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) are not applied with any particular machine, (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) are not applied in any 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. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). Therefore, the claims are directed to the judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: a system having a processor and memory configured to perform the abstract idea and a display unit to display the result.
These elements amount to generic, well-understood and conventional computer components. The use of computers to process and display data represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry and/or constitutes extra-solution activity. As demonstrated by Berkheimer v. HP, such computer functions cannot save an otherwise ineligible claim under §101. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The claimed features relating to acquiring electric signals representative of an image of the timekeeping line captured by the image sensor, the electric signals being produced according to optical signals received by the image sensor, transmitting the electric signals to an image-processing unit and transmitting the time of passage measured to a display unit are extra-solution activities of data gathering for the abstract process and post solution presentation of the result, both of which are not particular and are recited at a high level of generality.
Considered as an ordered combination, only generic computer components are present. Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the concept of making judgments by a generic computer. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. Under relevant court precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
As a result, claims 1, 3-8, 10-13, 15, 16, and 18 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regard to claim 9, Sigel, Broemmelsiek, and the other prior art of record do not anticipate or obviate the following recitations “wherein the detecting at least one additional piece of information comprises defining a line of the sensor horizontal to a ground surface to define a zone of detection in which the object is expected, the zone being on a side of the line in a direction away from the ground surface and being less than an entirety of the image, and limiting the detecting to a portion of the image in the zone, and the method further comprises not transmitting the order for detected objects passing below on a side of the line in a direction towards the ground surface” in combination with the rest of the elements in claim 1.
In addition, claim 9 recites a specific configuration of the image sensor and with corresponding analysis of the images produced from the sensor that are more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity, such that when considered as an ordered combination of the claimed components, the claim as whole recites significantly more than an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 9 in combination with the rest of the elements in claim recites patent eligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 30, 2025 have been fully considered.
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the specification.
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims.
The objection to claims for informalities is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The claims are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
With regard to the rejection under Section 101, the rejection has been updated to reflect the language of the newly amended claims. Applicant did not provide any detailed arguments other than a statement that “independent Claims 1 and 13 are amended to address this rejection,” therefore, the rejection is maintained for the reasons provide above, which address the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to anticipation and obviousness of the claims have been considered, and are found persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
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 Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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.
/ANDREW BODENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715