DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 02/10/2026 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claims 1 and 10 have been amended.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described in claims, specifically claims 1 and 10, e.g. “wherein the at least one current process state is determined from the physical process parameters extracted from the digital image data, the physical process parameters comprising at least one of spatial position, orientation, depth, distance, or geometric relationship of a workpiece or tool; provide corrective guidance during execution of the industrial process step so as to reduce propagation of an incorrectly executed process step into a subsequent industrial process step”, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I): "Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language (e.g. wherein the at least one current process state is determined from the physical process parameters extracted from the digital image data, the physical process parameters comprising at least one of spatial position, orientation, depth, distance, or geometric relationship of a workpiece or tool; provide corrective guidance during execution of the industrial process step so as to reduce propagation of an incorrectly executed process step into a subsequent industrial process step) specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For method, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply develop a industrial process step so as to reduce propagation of an incorrectly executed process step into a subsequent industrial process step in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV."
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1 and 10 recite the term " so as to reduce propagation of an incorrectly executed process step". It is not clear whether this element with following limitation element part of the claim invention or not. Because, the term “so as to” refers to a alternate/optional solution/element and insignificant in claim invention. Therefore, claim is considered to be indefinite.
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1– 6, 8-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1– 6, 8-13 and 16-18 fall within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, and each of claims 1–6 and 8-9 falls within category of process; each of claims 10-13 and 16-18 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)).
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of monitoring a sequence of industrial process steps.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A method for monitoring a sequence of industrial process steps carried out in an industrial manufacturing process via a monitoring system comprising a data processing unit, the method comprising:
Continuously recording digital image data in via at least one image sensor of at least one image acquisition unit of the monitoring system, the at last one image sensor being connected wirelessly or wired to the data processing unit, and transmitting the recorded digital image data to the data processing unit, the digital image data comprises a three-dimensional (3D) image data;
providing a machine learning system comprising at least one machine trained decision algorithm executed on the data processing unit of the monitoring system that receives the digital image data as input data of the at least one machine-trained decision algorithm and determines states of the industrial process step to be monitored as output data using at least one machine-trained decision algorithm by executing the at least one machine-trained decision algorithm on the data processing unit;
determining at least one current process state of the sequence of industrial process step using the decision algorithm of the machine learning system by executing the at least one machine-trained decision algorithm on the data processing unit and generating the at least one current process state of the industrial process steps with the executed at least one machine-trained decision algorithm as output data of the machine learning system based on the trained decision algorithm, wherein the at least one current process state is derived and/or determined from a learned correlation by input of the digital image data using a principle of learned generalization, wherein the at least one current process state is determined from the physical process parameters extracted from the digital image data, the physical process parameters comprising at least one of spatial position, orientation, depth, distance, or geometric relationship of a workpiece or tool; and
generating a visual, acoustic and / or haptic output via an output unit being connected to the data processing unit as a function of the at least one determined current process state,
wherein the recorded digital image data are transmitted to the data processing unit accessible over a network,
wherein the at least one current process state of the industrial process step is determined by the decision algorithm run on the data processing unit, and
wherein subsequently, as a function of the determined current process state of the industrial process step, the output unit is controlled by the data processing unit to provide corrective guidance during execution of the industrial process step so as to reduce propagation of an incorrectly executed process step into a subsequent industrial process step.
The italicized limitations above represent a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitation “A method for monitoring a sequence of industrial process steps […], determines states of the industrial process step[ ..];determining at least one current process state […]; determined from the physical process parameters ..; provide corrective guidance[..].” are mental evaluation that can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claim 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The 1st additional element is “a monitoring system comprising a data processing unit, output unit” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a computer running software. This element amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and/or mere use of a generic computer component as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(f)
The 2nd additional element is “providing a machine learning system comprising at least one machine trained decision algorithm executed on the data processing unit of the monitoring system that receives the digital image data as input data of the at least one machine-trained decision algorithm; at least one machine-trained decision algorithm by executing the at least one machine-trained decision algorithm on the data processing unit ; by the decision algorithm run on the data processing unit” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a computer running software with high level of generality. This element amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and/or mere use of a generic computer component as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application. See fig. 1-2. see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The 3rd additional element is “continuously recording digital image data in via at least one image sensor of at least one image acquisition unit of the monitoring system, the at last one image sensor being connected wirelessly or wired to the data processing unit, and transmitting the recorded digital image data to the data processing unit, the digital image data comprises a three-dimensional (3D) image data; wherein the recorded digital image data are transmitted to the data processing unit accessible over a network” This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The 4th additional element is “monitoring the industrial process step by generating a visual, acoustic and / or haptic output via an output unit as a function of the at least one determined current process state; wherein subsequently, as a function of the determined current process state of the industrial process step, the output unit is controlled by the data processing system for generating the visual, acoustic and / or haptic output.” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a an output apparatus configured to output information relating to the result, which is conventional and generic technology. See, ELECTRIC POWER GROUP, LLC v. ALSTOM S.A., where Court cites “Two of our decisions that rejected § 101 challenges are materially different from this case. The claims at issue here do not require an arguably inventive device or technique for displaying information, unlike the claims at issue in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (at JMOL stage finding inventive concept in modification of conventional mechanics behind website display to produce dual-source integrated hybrid display). Nor do the claims here require an arguably inventive distribution of functionality within a network, thus distinguishing the claims at issue from those in Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6 (at pleading stage finding sufficient inventive concept in “the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the endusers, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user”). The claims in this case specify what information in the power-grid field it is desirable to gather, analyze, and display, including in “real time”; but they do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology. The claims therefore do not state an arguably inventive concept in the realm of application of the information- based abstract ideas.” And a an post solution activity well known in the particular industry .
In view of the above, the four “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the four “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of devices each with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., an environment of computer hardware/software in communication with one another (a network of computing devices), and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations, i.e. “data are transmitted to the data processing unit accessible over a network; sensor being connected wirelessly or wired to the data processing unit”, which are generic device, which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser and IDS) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 2–9
Dependent claims 2–9 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2–9 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Claims 10-13 and 16-18
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea of monitoring a sequence of industrial process.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
10. A monitoring system for monitoring a sequence of industrial process steps carried out in an industrial process, the monitoring system comprising:
at least one image acquisition unit having at least one digital image sensor configured to continuously record digital image data, the digital image data comprises a three-dimensional (3D) image data;
a machine learning system having at least one machine-trained decision algorithm in the form of a neural network comprising a correlation between digital image data as input data of the machine learning system and process states of the industrial process step to be monitored as output data of the machine learning system, the machine learning system comprising:
a computing unit and a computer program comprising the machine-trained decision algorithm executed on the computing unit, computing unit configured to determine at least one current process state of the industrial process steps using the decision algorithm which is executable on the computing unit, in that, based on the trained decision algorithm, the at least one current process state of the industrial process step is generated as output data of the machine learning system from the recorded digital image data, wherein the at least one current process state is determined from physical process parameters extracted from the digital image data, the physical process parameters comprising at least one of spatial position, orientation, depth, distance, or geometric relationship of a workpiece or tool;; and
an output unit connected to the computing unit, the output unit being configure to generate a visual, acoustic and / or haptic output to a person as a function of the at least one determined current process state, wherein, as a function of the determined current process state, the computing unit is configured to control the output unit to provide corrective guidance during execution of the industrial process step so as to reduce propagation of an incorrectly executed process step into a subsequent industrial process step,
wherein the monitoring system has at least one mobile device comprising a computing unit and is adapted to be carried by a person involved in the industrial process step,
wherein the mobile device is set up to determine the at least one current. process state of the sequence of industrial process steps using the decision algorithm executed on the computing unit, and
wherein the monitoring system has a data processing unit accessible over a network, which is set up to receive the digital image data recorded by the image acquisition unit, to learn one or more parameters of the decision algorithm based on the received digital image data using a training module of the machine learning system which is run on the data processing unit and then to transmit the parameters of the decision algorithm from the data processing unit to the mobile device carried by the person.
The italicized limitations above represent a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitation “A monitoring system for monitoring a sequence of industrial process steps …, determines states of the industrial process step ..;determining at least one current process state …; provide corrective guidance during execution of the industrial process …; the at least one current process state is determined from physical process parameters ..; generating a visual, acoustic and / or haptic output.” are mental evaluation that can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
.
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claim 10 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The 1st additional element is “monitoring system comprising: at least one image acquisition unit, a machine learning system, at least one computing unit, an output unit” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a computer running software. This element amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and/or mere use of a generic computer component as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The 2nd additional element is “a computing unit and a computer program comprising the machine-trained decision algorithm executed on the computing unit; machine learning system of the monitoring system; the machine learning system based on the trained decision algorithm; the decision algorithm of the machine learning system; wherein the at least one current process state of the industrial process step is determined by the decision algorithm run on the data processing system; the machine learning system from the recorded digital image data generated as input data of the machine learning system” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a computer running software with high level of generality. This element amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer with high level of generally and/or mere use of a generic computer component as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application. See fig. 1-2. see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The 3rd additional element is “at least one image acquisition unit having at least one digital image sensor configured to continuously record digital image data, the digital image data comprises a three-dimensional (3D) image data” This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The 4th additional element is “to generate a visual, acoustic and / or haptic output to a person as a function of the at least one determined current process state” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a an output apparatus configured to output information relating to the result, which is conventional and generic technology. See, ELECTRIC POWER GROUP, LLC v. ALSTOM S.A., where Court cites “Two of our decisions that rejected § 101 challenges are materially different from this case. The claims at issue here do not require an arguably inventive device or technique for displaying information, unlike the claims at issue in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (at JMOL stage finding inventive concept in modification of conventional mechanics behind website display to produce dual-source integrated hybrid display). Nor do the claims here require an arguably inventive distribution of functionality within a network, thus distinguishing the claims at issue from those in Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6 (at pleading stage finding sufficient inventive concept in “the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the endusers, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user”). The claims in this case specify what information in the power-grid field it is desirable to gather, analyze, and display, including in “real time”; but they do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology. The claims therefore do not state an arguably inventive concept in the realm of application of the information- based abstract ideas.” And a an post solution activity well known in the particular industry .
The 5th additional element is “wherein the monitoring system has at least one mobile device comprising a computing unit and is adapted to be carried by a person involved in the industrial process steps;” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a computer running software. This element amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and/or mere use of a generic computer component as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The 6th additional element is “the monitoring system has a data processing system accessible over a network, which is set up to receive the digital image data recorded by the image acquisition unit, to learn one or more parameters of the decision algorithm based on the received digital image data using a training module of the machine learning system which is run on the data processing system and then to transmit the parameters of the decision algorithm from the data processing system to the mobile device carried by the person.” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a computer running software and data gathering. This element amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and/or mere use of a generic computer component as a tool to perform the abstract idea with extra solution activity. Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(f).
In view of the above, the six “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the four “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of devices each with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., an environment of computer hardware/software in communication with one another (a network of computing devices), and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claim 10 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations, i.e. “data are transmitted to the data processing unit accessible over a network; sensor being connected wirelessly or wired to the data processing unit”, which are generic device, which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser and IDS) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 11-13 and 16-18
Dependent claims 11-13 and 16-18 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 10 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 11-13 and 16-18 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, specially claims 1 and 10. The applicant did not agree with it. Applicant argus that amended limitations has overcome the current 101 rejection, see page 10-12.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because Claim interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed
to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the plain meaning of the words in the claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims , specially claim 1 and 10 are monitoring an sequence of industrial process steps of an industrial process via a monitoring system (which is a device such as a general purpose computer) for analysis data, which performs the functions of (a)generate an analysis result, (b) generate an out put and display Appendix 1 to the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a monitoring system and process, which is a general purpose computer or processes . Thus, the claims are to a manufacture or a machine, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The limitations(including amended limitaions) represent mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites the additional element of the monitoring system configured to analysis data to generate and output a result. But the monitoring system is recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that it is a “processor with machine learning algorithm”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer with high level of generality with extra-solution activity. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions 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 the controller does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, this additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, there is one additional element. The first is the monitoring system, which is configured perform limitations. As explained previously, the monitoring system with machine learning algorithm is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Here, the recitation of a monitoring system being configured to processing data is recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. Thus, the element does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). Furthermore, Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a generic device with software, where such computers, database and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea . The claim is not eligible. Furthermore, Applicant’s above supportive paragraph direct to only data analysis and failed to describe any practical field of application. Not like Enfish, claim is like to ELECTRIC POWER GROUP, LLC v. ALSTOM S.A., where Court cites “Two of our decisions that rejected § 101 challenges are materially different from this case. The claims at issue here do not require an arguably inventive device or technique for displaying information, unlike the claims at issue in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (at JMOL stage finding inventive concept in modification of conventional mechanics behind website display to produce dual-source integrated hybrid display). Nor do the claims here require an arguably inventive distribution of functionality within a network, thus distinguishing the claims at issue from those in Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6 (at pleading stage finding sufficient inventive concept in “the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the endusers, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user”). The claims in this case specify what information in the power-grid field it is desirable to gather, analyze, and display, including in “real time”; but they do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology. The claims therefore do not state an arguably inventive concept in the realm of application of the information- based abstract ideas.” And a an post solution activity well known in the particular industry .In view of the above, the three “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the three “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic devices with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. As such 101 rejection is maintained.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) US 2019/0314996
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857