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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the multiple sets of species in the reply filed on May 19, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a serious search burden does not exist.
The previous election/restriction requirement does not clearly designate which claims are directed to particular species. For the sake of expediting prosecution, the election/restriction requirement is withdrawn.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner notes that, though no art has been applied against the claims at this time, they are not presently allowable. The question of prior art will be revisited upon resolution of the numerous 35U.S.C. 112(b) and clarity issues noted above. See MPEP 2173.06.II:
“…where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informality:
Fig. 6: “vetical distance” should read as “vertical distance”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“estimation unit” first recited in claim 1;
“reception unit” first recited in claim 3;
“specification unit” first recited in claim 3;
“setting unit” first recited in claim 4;
“control unit” first recited in claim 9;
“posture detection unit” first recited in claim 13.
The term “estimation unit” is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function. The term is modified by functional language (“an estimation unit which estimates…”). The term is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure for an estimation unit appears to components of a generic computer processor (Paragraph 0032: “The control unit 150 functions as a reception unit 201, a specification unit 202, a measurement control unit 203, an estimation unit 204, and a display control unit 205;” Paragraph 0025: “… the control unit 150 may be… a personal computer, a smartphone, a tablet terminal, or the like in which programs for performing a central venous pressure test are installed.”
The terms “reception unit” and “specification unit” are interpreted identically to “estimation unit” above since citations of Applicant’s Specification above identify the corresponding structure of such terms as mere components of a generic computer processor.
The term “control unit” is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function. The term is modified by functional language (“which causes the target person to assume the particular posture…”). The term is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure for an estimation unit appears to components of a generic computer processor (Paragraph 0032: “The control unit 150 functions as a reception unit 201, a specification unit 202, a measurement control unit 203, an estimation unit 204, and a display control unit 205;” Paragraph 0025: “… the control unit 150 may be… a personal computer, a smartphone, a tablet terminal, or the like in which programs for performing a central venous pressure test are installed.” However, Examiner notes claim 9 recites a control unit separately from the previous units. See rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “posture detection unit” is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function. The term is modified by functional language (“which detects an angle formed by the upper part and the lower part of the body of the target person…”). The term is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure for a posture detection unit is any device comprising an angle sensor, i.e., an acceleration sensor (Paragraph 0064: “The angle sensor 161 is part of a posture detection unit. The angle sensor 161 can be an acceleration sensor, for example”).
The terms “setting unit” is interpreted identically to “estimation unit” above since citations of Applicant’s Specification above identify the corresponding structure of such a term as merely a component of a generic computer processor.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 9, 10, 13, and dependent claims thereof are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re. Claim 1: Claim 1 contains multiple issues of indefiniteness in the following limitation:
“…an estimation unit which estimates that the central venous pressure of the target person is lower than a predetermined reference venous pressure if the venous pulse is not detected by the sensor at the measurement position of the target person who assumes a particular posture the target person who assumes a particular posture with which a water-gauge pressure corresponding to a vertical distance between the heart of the target person and a peak point, in the vertical direction, of a vein leading from the heart to the measurement position coincides with the reference venous pressure.”
It is unclear what is meant by the phrase “water-gauge pressure” in the limitation above. It is unclear whether the phrase is directed to a particular unit of measurement (e.g., mmHg, PSI, etc.) or whether the phrase is the pressure of an undisclosed element measuring the reference blood pressure. Examiner notes that the sensor of claim 1 only measures “a venous pulse” and is not explicitly claimed as measuring a pressure.
It is unclear what is meant by “water-gauge pressure corresponding to a vertical distance between the heart of the target person and a peak point, in the vertical direction, of a vein leading from the heart to the measurement position coincides with the reference venous pressure.”
The phrase “vertical direction” is not provided with sufficient antecedent basis; it is unclear if the phrase is describing a direction analogous to the direction of gravity or whether it describes a vertical direction of an axis of the apparatus (or component thereof), or person (or part thereof) being measured.
The claim fails to define what may constitute a “peak point” of a vein in the vertical direction.
The claim further fails to specify what element and how a peak point is determined.
The claim also further fails to specify what element and how the vertical distance required by the claim is determined.
The claim further specifies that an estimation unit performs estimation steps while a person is in a particular posture. It is unclear whether a detection of posture is required to cause estimation steps or whether it is inherent qualities of the posture which the estimation steps act upon. In the former case, the apparatus claim fails to specify what element and how the particular posture required by the claim is determined.
Examiner notes that (while this is not an issue of indefiniteness) the claim describes estimating that the central venous pressure is lower than a reference pressure under the condition that a venous pulse is not detected by the sensor (under specific conditions); however, there are many other conditions/explanations as to why a venous pulse may not be detected by a sensor (e.g., insufficient sensor coupling, battery life, placement, improper sensor readings, noise, etc.).
Re. Claims 9: Claim 9 recites “a control unit.” However, under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation and in light of Applicant’s Specification, the “units” recited claims 5, 3, and 1 are defined as part of a control unit. It is unclear whether “a control unit” is intended to be recited as another control unit separate from that implied by the “units” recited in earlier claims of the dependency chain.
Re. Claim 10: Claim 10 recites a specific method of specifying the particular posture (i.e., using line segments and geometry). However, particular posture is specified by the received venous pressure earlier in claim 3, which is part of the dependency chain of claim 10. Claim 10 recites an entirely different method of identifying particular posture. It is unclear by which method particular posture intended to be determined within the dependency chain.
Re. Claim 13: Claim 13 recites another specific method of specifying the particular posture (i.e., using a posture detection unit and angle sensor). However, particular posture is specified by the received venous pressure earlier in claim 3, which is part of the dependency chain of claim 13. Claim 13 recites an entirely different method of identifying particular posture. It is unclear by which method particular posture intended to be determined within the dependency chain.
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, 2, 3, 5, 10, 12, 13, 6, 7, 11, 14, and 15 (following claim dependency order) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Each claim has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Examiner notes that claims 4 and 8 (directed to a cuff and control of pressure thereof), and 9 (directed to electronic control of a posture guide tool) are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of the claims recites steps or instructions for ascertaining and processing data to measure a blood pressure of a mammal subject, which is grouped as a mental process. Accordingly, each of the claims recites an abstract idea.
Independent claim 1 recites:
A venous pressure testing apparatus for estimating a central venous pressure of a target person by measuring a venous pulse by a sensor at a predetermined measurement position of the target person, comprising (additional element; extra-solution activity):
an estimation unit which estimates that the central venous pressure of the target person is lower than a predetermined reference venous pressure if the venous pulse is not detected by the sensor at the measurement position of the target person who assumes a particular posture with which a water-gauge pressure corresponding to a vertical distance between the heart of the target person and a peak point, in the vertical direction, of a vein leading from the heart to the measurement position coincides with the reference venous pressure (additional element; observation, judgement, or evaluation).
Independent claim 14 recites:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores a venous pressure testing program for testing a central venous pressure of a target person by measuring a venous pulse by a sensor at a predetermined measurement position of the target person, the venous pressure testing program causing a computer to execute processing of (additional element; extra-solution activity):
estimating that the central venous pressure of the target person is lower than a predetermined reference venous pressure if the venous pulse is not detected by the sensor at the measurement position of the target person who assumes a particular posture with which a water- gauge pressure corresponding to a vertical distance between the heart of the target person and a peak point, in the vertical direction, of a vein leading from the heart to the measurement position coincides with the reference venous pressure (observation, judgement, or evaluation).
Independent claim 15 recites:
A venous pressure testing method for estimating a central venous pressure of a target person by measuring a venous pulse by a sensor at a predetermined measurement position of the target person, comprising (additional element; extra-solution activity):
an estimation step of estimating that the central venous pressure of the target person is lower than a predetermined reference venous pressure if the venous pulse is not detected by the sensor at the measurement position of the target person who assumes a particular posture with which a water-gauge pressure corresponding to a vertical distance between the heart of the target person and a peak point, in the vertical direction, of a vein leading from the heart to the measurement position coincides with the reference venous pressure (observation, judgement, or evaluation).
As indicated above, the independent claim recites at least one step or instruction grouped as a mental process. Therefore, each of the independent claims recites an abstract idea. Each limitation, aside from language reciting a generic computer components, can be grouped as a mental process (see italicized portions above), and is addressed as follows:
Claim 1 recites an apparatus which performs a mental process of observation, judgement, or evaluation based on data received from a generically recited sensor.
Claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium which causes a generically claimed computer processor to perform limitations mutatis mutandis identical to that of claim 1.
Claim 15 recites a method which recites steps mutatis mutandis identical to that of claim 1.
No limitations are provided that would force the complexity of any of the identified evaluation steps to be non-performable by pen-and-paper practice.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 10, 12, 13, 6, 7, and 11 (following claim dependency order) merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea or limitations relating to the data gathered and amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Examiner notes that dependent claims 9, 4, and 8 (following claim dependency order) do not recite a mental process because since they recite particular control of either a posture guide tool (as per claim 9) or a pressurizable cuff-based sensor (claims 4 and 8).
Thus, these concepts are similar to court decisions of abstract ideas of itself: collecting, displaying, and manipulating data (Int. Ventures v. Cap One Financial), collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), collection, storage, and recognition of data (Smart Systems Innovations).
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
More specifically:
Independent claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
a venous pressure testing apparatus comprising an estimation unit;
a sensor.
Independent claim 14 does not recite additional elements different from those recited in claim 1 beyond generically claimed computer components (i.e., “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium”).
Independent claim 15 recites no additional elements different from those recited in claim 1.
Such additional elements are generically recited elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field.
The venous pressure testing apparatus is not recited with components outside of an estimation unit in independent claim 1. Thus, the venous pressure testing apparatus as claimed is reasonably interpretable as no more than a generic computer processor having components for carrying out the functions of an estimation unit. Both the venous pressure testing apparatus and estimation unit are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processors and memory performing a generic computer function of performing calculations and storing data, respectively) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s).
The claim recites merely acquiring data from a generically recited sensor, having no operative connection to the a venous pressure testing apparatus comprising an estimation unit besides communication of obtained data, which amounts to insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, which does not constitute an integration into a practical application.
Thus, the identified additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The above-identified generically recited elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. An improvement which is rooted in the abstract idea does not make the judicial exception any less abstract. The improvement must be provide by one or more additional elements outside of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract ideas of claims 1, 14, and 15 are not integrated into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims are each directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 10, 12, 13, 6, 7, and 11 (following claim dependency order) recite additional elements of a number of “units” (e.g., reception unit, specification unit, etc.”) which are interpreted as no more than components of a generic computer processor. See interpretation of such claim terms under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Step 2B
None of the claims include additional elements that, when viewed as a whole, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons:
Independent claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
a venous pressure testing apparatus comprising an estimation unit;
a sensor which is capable of measuring a venous pulse.
Independent claim 14 does not recite additional elements different from those recited in claim 1 beyond generically claimed computer components (i.e., “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium”).
Independent claim 15 recites no additional elements different from those recited in claim 1.
Each of the above components is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional.
As stated under analysis in Step 2A, Prong Two, a venous pressure testing apparatus comprising an estimation unit is considered to be merely a generic computer processor having components for carrying out the functions of an estimation unit. As per Applicant’s specification, the processor appears to be generically described such that it appears to be directed to no more than a general purpose computer (Paragraph 0032: “The control unit 150 functions as a reception unit 201, a specification unit 202, a measurement control unit 203, an estimation unit 204, and a display control unit 205;” Paragraph 0025: “… the control unit 150 may be… a personal computer, a smartphone, a tablet terminal, or the like in which programs for performing a central venous pressure test are installed”).
Applicant’s disclosure is not particular regarding the particular structure of the generically claimed sensor configured for measuring a venous pulse, and recites that “central venous pressure can be measured invasively by inserting a catheter to the vicinity of the right atrium…in recent years, noninvasive venous pressure testing apparatuses that enable measurement of a central venous pressure and are low in the load of a patient have been being developed” (Paragraph 0005). Thus, Applicant’s Specification indicates two methods which are well-understood before the effective filing date of the invention to form a sensor configured for measuring a venous pulse (Examiner notes that a pulse is merely a pressure waveform). Applicant’s Specification further specifies that such a sensor may be substituted for “a sensor that detects a venous pulse by detecting a physical quantity of at least one of light, an electrical impedance, and an ultrasonic wave” (Paragraph 0061). No special programming or algorithms is indicated for how such sensors operate. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the medical technology arts. Thus, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the medical technology industry or medical technology arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional element because it describes such an additional element in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear from the claims themselves and the specification that these limitations require no improved computer resources and merely utilize already available computers with their already available basic functions to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 10, 12, 13, 6, 7, and 11 (following claim dependency order) merely recite steps which further define the abstract idea or extra-solution activity. Examiner notes that the dependent claims recite limitations which are extra-solution or part of the abstract idea itself do not constitute significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a):
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in the claims amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
For at least the above reasons, the claims are directed to applying an abstract idea on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. In other words, none of the claims provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in the independent claims do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (processing of sensor data). That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claims merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field.
Therefore, none of the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN XU whose telephone number is (571)272-6617. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/JUSTIN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791