DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Rejection Office Action in response to the 10/7/2025 submission filed in Application 17/941,722.
Claims 1-21 were previously examined.
Claims 1, 4, 7-11, 14, 17-19 have been amended. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-11, 14, 15, 17-22 are now presented.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/7/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/19/2025 with respect to the prior have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 9/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant argues “Firstly, Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner mischaracterizes the invention as an abstract idea. Instead, claim 1 is focused on a tangible, field-specific problem and its technical solution. Specifically, the detailed description states that substantially great amount of issues are detected increasing first year call out rates after installation. The claimed invention directly addresses this problem by proactively identifying issues during the installation process, thereby improving handover quality and reducing costly first year call out rates. This is a clear technical benefit that is not an abstract concept. Further, as recited in claim 1, the claimed invention operates within the physical and technical environment of a people conveyor or an access control system. The method is not about managing human behavior but about controlling and optimizing the installation and functionality of physical machinery.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Proactively identifying issues during the installation process, thereby improving handover quality and reducing costly first year call out rates by performing the recited limitation can be classified into the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Limitations that fall into the abstract ide grouping cannot also represent technical improvements.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant argues “Secondly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements are generic and insignificant. However, as set forth above, the amended claim specifies these elements in a way that demonstrates their non-conventional and integral role in the invention. More specifically, as set forth above, claim 1 details that the first site information is not generic data but a technical data set comprising specific information like configuration information, software information, installation status information, or material flow information. This data is sourced from non-conventional locations like one or more installed site devices, one or more not yet installed site devices, one or more external devices or systems, or a back reporting of one or more tools. This specific, technical data gathering is crucial to the claimed solution and is not merely a routine activity.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim has been amended to recite “obtaining first site information of the at least one ongoing installation process at the installation site from a site control unit arranged at the installation site, wherein the first site information is a technical data set comprising at least one of configuration information, software information, installation status information, or material flow information, obtained from one or more installed site devices, one or more not yet installed site devices, one or more external devices or systems, or a back reporting of one or more tools”. However, even though the claim has been amended to further limit the type of data that is obtained, the obtaining of information remains mere data gathering which is incidental to the primary process an amount to insignificant extra solution activity.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant argues “Further, claim 1 now specifies the exact types of machine learning techniques used, such as decision trees, support vector machines, and neural networks, which are not generic "apply it" instructions. Furthermore, the claim explicitly states the purpose of the training to improve accuracy in generating the at least one installation operation. This is a direct technical improvement resulting from the claimed process. The most significant technical improvement is the continuously learning method, as now recited in claim 1. The Specification describes that the system can "provide the site information of the at least one ongoing installation process... to the one or more external databases for one or more coming installation processes." This feedback loop, which is central to the invention, is a technical function that allows the system to get better over time without human intervention. This makes the invention a dynamic, evolving technical solution rather than a static, abstract one. This continuous improvement is not a human mental process but an automated, machine-driven technical function.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited machine learning and the feedback loop remains an attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it”. For example, the claims do not state how the machine learning model defines an installation operation or how the model is trained. The claims have been amended to list several types of potential machine learning techniques including decision trees, support vector machines, and neural networks. However, the claim does not state the particular way in which these machine learning techniques are implemented. Further, feedback loops are inherent in all machine earning models. The claims do not state the particular way that the model or the feedback loop works. As such, the broadly recited ML model does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant argues “In addition, unlike a mere report, the output of the claimed method is a signal that directly causes a physical change to a people conveyor or an access control system. The claim specifies these changes to include updating one or more software versions, changing one or more operation parameters, or activating one or more features. These actions demonstrate a tangible, physical result, and directly alter the physical state and functionality of the machinery. This is a clear example of the claimed method effecting a "transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing" as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(c).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims dos not state how the defined installation operation is performed remotely and under the broadest reasonable interpretation humans can generate an instruction to perform the at least one installation operation, generate a remote support request, request information from the installation site in response to the remote support request, and perform remotely the defined at least one installation operation in response to the remote support request. The amendments that further define the remotely performed installation operation do not save the claim. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation this can be directed to remotely providing instructions for a human operator to implement the recited installation operations.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant argues “Applicant notes that based on the decision in Berkheimnerv.HPInc.,2017- 1437 (Fed Cir. 2018), the question of whether a claimed element is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact. In particular. the Examiner is respectfully reminded that if the element is not widely prevalent or in common use, it should not be considered to be a well-understood, routine, conventional element, and obviousness or lack of novelty does not establish that the additional elements are well- understood, routine, conventional activities or elements to those in the relevant field. The Examiner is further respectfully reminded that the mere fact that something is disclosed in a piece of prior art, for example, does not mean it was well-understood, routine, and conventional."MPEP 2106.05 also states that the question of whether additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity is distinct from patentability over the prior art under 35U.S.C.§102 and 103, and this is because a showing that additional elements are obvious under 35U.S.C.§103, or even that they lack novelty under 35 U.S.C.@102, is not by itself sufficient to establish that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activities or elements to those in the relevant field. Thus, if the Examiner were to assert that the above mentioned additional elements as now recited in claim 1 are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, the Examiner is respectfully requested to support such an assertion according to the guideline set forth in the Memorandum issued by the USPTO on April 19, 2018.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained by the MPEP, any elements that were identified as insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2a prong 2 should be evaluated under the Berkheimer analysis to determine if they are well-known and conventional in step 2B. In the instant case, the Examiner has identified the obtaining of information as considered mere data gathering which is insignificant pre- solution activity. As such, the Examiner has evaluated these limitation in step 2B under the Berkheimer analysis. The obtaining data is recited broadly in the claims. MPEP 2106.05(d) states receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data is conventional when claimed generically (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)). As such, the broadly claimed receipt of location data is considered well-known and conventional as established by the MPEP and relevant case law. As such, this conclusion meets the Berkheimer requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-11, 14-15, 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, in step 2A prong 1 it must then be determined whether the claim is recite a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim recites a judicial exception, under step 2A prong 2 it must additionally be determined whether the recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim does not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application, under step 2B it must then be determined if the claim provides an inventive concept.
In the Instant case, Claims 1, 4-5, 7-10, 22 are directed toward methods for generating an installation operation for at least one ongoing installation process. Claims 11, 14-15, 17-19 are directed toward a computing unit for generating an installation operation for at least one ongoing installation process. Claims 20 is directed toward a system comprising a computing unit for generating an installation operation for at least one ongoing installation process. As such, Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
MPEP 2106.04 II. A. explains that in step 2A prong 1 Examiners are to determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a) explains that:
To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
As per step 2A prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, claim 1 recites the abstract idea of generating at least one installation operation for at least one ongoing installation process of at an installation site which falls into the abstract idea categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. The elements of Claim 1 that represent the Abstract idea include:
A method for generating at least one installation operation for at least one ongoing installation process of a people conveyor or an access control system at an installation site, the method comprising:
defining at least one installation operation for the at least one ongoing installation process based on the first site information of the at least one ongoing installation process and the second site information gathered from the one or more previous installation processes, comprising the substeps of:
detecting at least one issue in the first site information of the at least one ongoing installation process, wherein the at least one issue selected from a group consisting of faults, defects, deficiencies, outdated software versions, and outdated operation parameters;
and
defining the at least one installation operation by applying a module,
wherein the module receives the detected at least one issue in the first site information of the at least one ongoing installation process as its input data and generates the at least one installation operation as the output data of the module by applying one or more techniques, and
wherein the site information gathered from one or more previous installation processes at one or more other installation sites is used as a training data to train the module to improve accuracy in generating the at least one installation operation, thereby providing a continuously learning method;
generating at least one signal comprising an instruction to perform the at least one installation operation for the at least one ongoing installation process to the site control unit;
generating a remote support request to a centralized remote monitoring center based on the defined at least one installation operation;
automatically requesting, by the centralized remote monitoring center, information from the installation site in response to the remote support request;
performing remotely the defined at least one installation operation in response to the remote support request wherein the remotely performed installation operation is at least one of updating one or more software versions, changing one or more operation parameters, or activating one or more features on the people conveyor or access control system.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states:
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions
The defining step can be performed mentally or by a human using a pen and paper. Further, a human can use data from previous installation to refine a model. Further, the generating step is recited broadly. The claims dos not state how the defined installation operation is performed remotely and under the broadest reasonable interpretation humans can generate an instruction to perform the at least one installation operation, generate a remote support request, request information from the installation site in response to the remote support request, and perform remotely the defined at least one installation operation in response to the remote support request. The amendments that further define the remotely performed installation operation do not save the claim. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation this can be directed to remotely providing instructions for a human operator to implement the recited installation operations.
Further, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. states:
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
Generating a remote support request, request information from the installation site in response to the remote support request, and performing remotely the defined at least one installation operation in response to the remote support request are directed to method of organizing human activity. As such, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2 the examiner must then determine if the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. The 2019 PEG states that additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
In the instant case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
obtaining first site information of the at least one ongoing installation process at the installation site from a site control unit arranged at the installation site, wherein the first site information is a technical data set comprising at least one of configuration information, software information, installation status information, or material flow information, obtained from one or more installed site devices, one or more not yet installed site devices, one or more external devices or systems, or a back reporting of one or more tools;
obtaining second site information gathered from one or more previous installation processes at one or more other installation sites from one or more external databases, wherein the second site information comprises identified issues information and corresponding corrective or preventive installation operations from said previous installation processes;
the use of a machine learning techniques selected from a group consisting of decision trees, support vector machines, and neural networks,
Further, Claim 11 recites the additional elements of processing unit being configured to cause the computing unit at least to perform the recited abstract idea
However, the processor unit is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Further MPEP 2105.05(g) explains that data gathering and data output can be considered pre-solution activity and post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) that states:
An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.
In the instant case, the obtaining of information is considered mere data gathering which is incidental to the primary process in a similar way that obtaining information about credit card transactions to be analyzed was incidental to the primary process explained above. The claim has been amended to recite they types of data that are obtained. However, this still amount to mere data gathering. Further, MPEP 2106.05 also states Examiner should evaluate whether the extra-solution limitation is well known. In this case, the broadly obtaining of information is well known. The MPEP also cites several examples of mere data gathering that have been found to be insignificant extra-solution activity including gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price (see OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93); and obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions (see CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011))
Similarly, the generating of a signal recited in the instant claims is not meaningfully different from the post solution activity of a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. Both the instant case and the example cited in the MPEP merely output the result of an analysis in a manner that is not integrated into the claim as a whole.
Further, the use of a machine learning model is indicative of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(f) states:
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).
In the instant case, the additional elements of the broadly recited machine learning attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it”. For example, the claims do not state how the machine learning model defines an installation operation or how the model is trained. The claims have been amended to list several types of potential machine learning techniques including decision trees, support vector machines, and neural networks. However, the claim does not state the particular way in which these techniques are implemented. As such, the broadly recited ML model does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
When viewing the generic output, data gathering and broadly recited ML model in combination with the generic computer does not add more than when viewing the elements individually. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In step 2B, the examiner must be determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d). As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Further, the receipt or location data is recited broadly in the claims.
MPEP 2106.05(d) states receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data is conventional when claimed generically (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)). As such, the broadly claimed obtaining of information is considered well-known and conventional as established by the MPEP and relevant case law.
Further, similar to the analysis with respect to step 2A prong 2 recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished (the broadly recited ML model) cannot provide an inventive concept under step 2B of the eligibility analysis.
When viewing the generic output, data gathering and broadly recited ML model in combination with the generic computer does not add more than when viewing the elements individually. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate provide an inventive concept.
Further Claims 4-5, 7-10, 21 further limit the mental processes and methods of organizing human activities recited in the parent claim, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 4-5, 7-10, 21 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. The presentment of claim 1 otherwise styled as a method, computer program product or system, for example, would be subject to the same analysis. As such, claims 11-20, 22 are also rejected.
Claim 21 is rejected under 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 21 is directed toward a computer program embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium. That claims is directed to a computer program, instead of a computer program product. If the claim were re-written to be directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a processing unit of a computing unit cause the computing unit to perform the method according claim, the claim would be directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEIRDRE D HATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DEIRDRE D HATCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625