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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Beginning on page 10, Applicant states that the human mind cannot perform the actions performed by the recited sensor and/or controller of storing information in a memory device and wirelessly transmitting information from the work device to a diagnostic device that indicates a change in a motor drive system. This is not persuasive because the human mind can observe data from a system, determine a change in the monitored data/system. The sensor is for data gathering and the memory and diagnostic device are computers acting in their expected capacities (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) Use of 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 (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.). The mobile gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device and its motor drive system only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the mobile gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device and its motor drive system does not change the steps performed in the method or the functions of the processor and memory elements, it merely specifies that the recited data analysis, storage, and transmission is used in a working device.
Applicant then states that storing information based on only the recited conditions is an improvement that integrates the potential judicial exception into a practical application. This is not persuasive because deciding on the conditions in which certain information is stored or shared can be performed by the human mind. Saving and sharing only important information does not reflect an improvement to computers or work devices.
On page 11, Applicant states that the claims include elements that do not represent well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, noting that there are no prior art rejections. This is not persuasive because a lack of prior art does not indicate subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-13, and 15-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method for determining information about a change of a mobile gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device, wherein the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device has a motor drive system, the method comprising the steps of:
a) repeatedly automatically detecting, with a sensor of the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device, a characteristic variable of the motor drive system in respect of time;
b) automatically comparing, with a controller of the gardening, forestry,
construction or soil-working device, at least one first value of the detected characteristic variable or a variable based on it from a first time period and at least one second value of the detected characteristic variable or the variable based on it from a second time period with one another and forming, with the controller, a ratio of at least the first value and at least the second value in relation to one another;
c) automatically storing, with the controller, the information about the change of the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device in a memory device of the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device depending on a result of the comparison in the case of the change and not in a case of no change; and
d) wirelessly transmitting, with the controller, the stored information or information from the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device to a diagnostic device, the information indicating a change of the motor drive system of the mobile gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device;
wherein in step c) the information is stored depending on whether the ratio is equal to or greater than a ratio maximum limit value or equal to or less than a ratio minimum limit value, wherein the ratio minimum limit value is less than the ratio maximum limit value; and
wherein the characteristic variable is at least one of a rotation speed, a temperature, a pressure, a voltage, a current, a duration, or a time point;
wherein the memory device of the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device comprises at least one of a variable memory device or an event memory device, and
wherein at least one of:
step a) comprises: storing the detected characteristic variable or a variable based on it in the variable memory device;
step b) comprises: comparing at least the first value of the stored characteristic variable or the stored variable or a variable based on it and at least the second value of the stored characteristic variable or the stored variable or the variable based on it with one another; or
step c) comprises: storing the information in the event memory device; and
wherein at least one of:
the variable memory device is a non-volatile variable memory device; or
the event memory device is at least one of a non-volatile event memory device or is a ring memory.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “b) automatically comparing at least one first value of the detected characteristic variable or a variable based on it from a first time period and at least one second value of the detected characteristic variable or the variable based on it from a second time period with one another and forming a ratio of at least the first value and at least the second value in relation to one another (observation of data);
and c) automatically storing the information about the change of the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device in a memory device of the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device depending on a result of the comparison in the case of the change and not in a case of no change;
d) wirelessly transmitting the stored information or information from the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device, the information indicating a change of the motor drive system of the mobile gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device (sharing information);
wherein in step c) the information is stored depending on whether the ratio is equal to or greater than a ratio maximum limit value or equal to or less than a ratio minimum limit value, wherein the ratio minimum limit value is less than the ratio maximum limit value (recording observation); and
wherein the characteristic variable is at least one of a rotation speed, a temperature, a pressure, a voltage, a current, a duration, or a time point (decision of variables of interest);
wherein the memory device of the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device comprises at least one of a variable memory device or an event memory device (choice/decision), and
wherein at least one of:
step a) comprises: storing the detected characteristic variable or a variable based on it in the variable memory device (storing information);
step b) comprises: comparing at least the first value of the stored characteristic variable or the stored variable or a variable based on it and at least the second value of the stored characteristic variable or the stored variable or the variable based on it with one another (comparison); or
step c) comprises: storing the information in the event memory device (storing information); and
wherein at least one of:
the variable memory device is a non-volatile variable memory device (choice); or
the event memory device is at least one of a non-volatile event memory device or is a ring memory (choice)” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mental process grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 15 and 18.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
Claim 1: A method for determining information about a change of a mobile gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device, wherein the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device has a motor drive system, the method comprising the steps of: a) repeatedly automatically detecting, with a sensor of the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device, a characteristic variable of the motor drive system in respect of time; a controller; a memory; transmitting, with the controller, the stored information or information from the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device to a diagnostic device; a variable memory device or an event memory device;
Claim 15: A mobile gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device for determining information about a change of the gardening, forestry, construction or soil- working device, comprising: a motor drive system of the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device, wherein the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device is configured to: repeatedly automatically detect, with a sensor of the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device, a characteristic variable of the motor drive system in respect of time, compare at least one first value of the detected characteristic variable or a variable based on it from a first time period and at least one second value of the detected characteristic variable or the variable based on it from a second time period with one another, and store the information about the change of the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device depending on a result of the comparison; transmit, with the controller, the stored information or information from the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device to a diagnostic device; a variable memory device or an event memory device;.
Claim 18: A method for determining information about a change of a mobile gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device, wherein the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device has a motor drive system, the method comprising the steps of: a) repeatedly automatically detecting, with a sensor of the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device, a characteristic variable of the motor drive system in respect of time; a controller; a memory; transmitting, with the controller, the stored information or information from the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device to a diagnostic device;
The additional element in the preamble of “A method for determining information about a change of a mobile gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device, wherein the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device has a motor drive system/A mobile gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device for determining information about a change of the gardening, forestry, construction or soil- working device” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The steps of a) repeatedly detecting a characteristic variable of the motor drive system in respect of time; and a motor drive system of the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device, wherein the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device is configured to: repeatedly automatically detect, with a sensor of the gardening, forestry, construction or soil-working device, a characteristic variable of the motor drive system in respect of time represent mere data gathering steps and only add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. A memory, a variable memory device or an event memory device (generic memory) and a controller and a diagnostic device (generic processor) are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines. Additionally, as stated above, using computers to store and transmit data is considered mere instructions to apply an exception, as a computer is expected to be able to store and transmit data (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of 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 (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.)
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, as discussed in the previous office action, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 4-6, 8-13, 16 and 17 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
The Examiner notes that there are still no prior art rejections at this time as a result of the previous amendments to the claims. The prior art teaches comparing measured values to modeled values, while the current invention is comparing the measured values at different times.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN T BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-4194. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 7:00-4:30.
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, CATHERINE RASTOVSKI can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/CHRISTIAN T BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights