DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The amendment filed 07/01/2026 has been received and considered. Claim 5 is canceled. Claim 10 is new. Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are presented for examination.
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 3, 4, and 8 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the initial design" in lines 3, 5-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The anteceding limitation was amended to be "initial configuration".
As to claim 4, the same deficiency applies.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the modeling of the physical variables" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no "modeling of physical variables" anteceding this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the physical variables transmitted through the input and output terminals" in lines 18-19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are no "physical variables transmitted through the input and output terminals" anteceding this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1, Step 1: a method (process = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes).
Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One: Claim recites
a) evaluating by a computing system with at least one processor, a measuring chain of an initial configuration…
c) modeling, by the computing system, the cause-and-effect relationship between the transmission links by applying the essential technical characteristic to each transmission link in the measuring chain;
d) determining, by the computing system, a measurement uncertainty contribution for each transmission link in the measuring chain based on the modeling performed in step c) of the cause-and-effect relationship transmitted through the input and output terminals of each transmission link…
g) evaluating, by the computing system, the final configuration of the measuring chain to ensure that the measurement uncertainty of the measuring system is maintained with a lower cost transmission link
Claim 1 is substantially drawn to mental processes: observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion; but for the recitation of generic computer components. Other than reciting “by a computing system with at least one processor” nothing claimed precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computer components does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. Information and/or data also fall within the realm of abstract ideas because information and data are intangible. See Electric Power Group1 (Electric Power hereinafter): “Information… is an intangible”. Thus, the claim recites mental processes.
As to the limitations "a) evaluating by a computing system with at least one processor, a measuring chain of an initial configuration of the measuring chain of transmission links", as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, they can be characterized as entailing a user analyzing (observations, evaluations) and concluding (judgments, opinions), i.e., processing information and/or data, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. As to the limitations "an initial configuration", Examiner notes that both the claimed invention and the specification are mute about "configur*" – "initial configuration". However, the specification reads: "[0026]… the person skilled in the art knowing the present invention may of course design a measuring system comprising more transmission links or fewer transmission links". Designing is a mental activity.
As to the limitations "c) modeling, by the computing system, the cause-and-effect relationship between the transmission links by applying the essential technical characteristic to each transmission link in the measuring chain", determinations and mathematical operations are activities that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Examiner notes that both the claimed invention and the specification are mute about "applying
'[0006] Measurement uncertainty is a function of influencing variables of the transmission links. Each influencing variable is represented as an influence value. A best influence estimate is an arithmetic mean of several influencing variables. According to ISO/IEC Guide 98-3: 2008-09 a model-based procedure is to be carried out to determine the measurement uncertainty wherein first the influencing variables of the transmission links are determined followed by calculating a best influence estimate for each determined influencing variable as well as a measurement uncertainty contribution attributed to the best influence estimate…
[0008] However, to gain knowledge on the measurement uncertainty of a measuring system a model-based procedure is required comprising the determination of the relevant influencing variables of the transmission links and calculating the best influence estimates together with the associated measurement uncertainties. The user of a measuring system often wants to avoid the time and material effort involved in such a model procedure'.
As to the "cause-and-effect" relationship, adjacency is a mathematical operation. It entails a user deciding on adjacent information (observations, evaluations) and concluding (judgments, opinions), i.e., processing information and/or data, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The Specification reads (underline emphasis added):
'ABSTRACT… Directly adjacent transmission links are in a cause-and-effect relationship in the measuring chain…
[0011] The present invention relates to a method for determining the measurement uncertainty of a measuring system… wherein directly adjacent transmission links are in a cause-and-effect relationship to one another in the measuring chain…
[0026] FIG. 1 shows an exemplary embodiment of a measuring system S comprising a plurality of transmission links G1-G4. As explained in the beginning, measuring system S serves for detecting a physical measurement variable. For this purpose, the transmission links G1-G4 form a measuring chain K. There is a cause-and-effect relationship between directly adjacent transmission links G1-G4 of the measuring chain K, for example transmission links G1 and G2 or transmission links G2 and G3, for detecting the physical measurement variable…
Claims 1… wherein directly adjacent transmission links (G1-G4) are in a cause-and-effect relationship to one another in the measuring chain (K)'
As to the limitations "d) determining, by the computing system, a measurement uncertainty contribution for each transmission link in the measuring chain based on the modeling performed in step c) of the cause-and-effect relationship transmitted through the input and output terminals of each transmission link", determinations are mental in nature. As drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, they can be characterized as entailing a user analyzing deciding/determining (judgments, opinions), that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The Specification reads (underline emphasis added):
'[0006] Measurement uncertainty is a function of influencing variables of the transmission links. Each influencing variable is represented as an influence value. A best influence estimate is an arithmetic mean of several influencing variables. According to ISO/IEC Guide 98-3: 2008-09 a model-based procedure is to be carried out to determine the measurement uncertainty wherein first the influencing variables of the transmission links are determined followed by calculating a best influence estimate for each determined influencing variable as well as a measurement uncertainty contribution attributed to the best influence estimate…'
As to the limitations "g) evaluating, by the computing system, the final configuration of the measuring chain to ensure that the measurement uncertainty of the measuring system is maintained with a lower cost transmission link", as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, they can be characterized as entailing a user analyzing (observations, evaluations) and concluding (judgments, opinions), i.e., processing information and/or data, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The Specification reads (underline emphasis added):
“[0052]… The user recognizes that the measurement uncertainty contributions U41, U42 for the relevant influencing variables E41, E42 "rounding errors in further processing" and "speed of further processing" are the smallest. This finding leads to the conclusion that the particular identified transmission link G4 which is an evaluation unit is overdesigned. To save investment costs, computer program product C replaces the particular identified transmission link G4 by a replacement transmission link G4* said replacement transmission link G4* having relatively higher replacement measurement uncertainty contributions U41*, U42*.
[0053]… This finding then leads to the conclusion that the particular transmission links G1, G2 have higher than average measurement uncertainty contributions U12-U14, U21“
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes, then it falls within the "(c) Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (c) Mental processes).
Independent claim 1, Step 2A Prong two: The claim recites the limitations “a computing system with at least one processor", they are interpreted at best as drawn to a generic computer for performing mental processes.
As to the limitations "for reconfiguring a measuring system to operate in a cost-effective manner, wherein the measuring system uses a plurality of transmission links having directly adjacent transmission links in a cause-and-effect relationship to one another to form a measuring chain for detecting a physical measurement variable, wherein each transmission link has an input terminal and an output terminal", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they recite only the idea of a solution or outcome.
As to the limitations "a)… of the measuring chain of transmission links that include a sensor, a signal cable connected to the sensor, an electric amplifier connected to the signal cable and an evaluation unit connected to the amplifier via the signal cable to determine evaluation information, which includes each transmission link in the measuring chain evaluated to determine a type of each transmission link, and a relative position of each transmission link in the measuring chain of the initial configuration” and "f) based on the determined measurement uncertainty for each transmission link, replacing at least one transmission link in the measuring chain of the initial configuration with a replacement transmission link to form a final configuration… by replacing a relevant transmission link in the measuring chain of the initial configuration", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
As to the limitations "b) automatically accessing, by the computing system from a database, digital information data for each type of transmission link, wherein the digital information data includes at least one of the following essential technical characteristics: a measuring range, a measuring sensitivity, a measuring accuracy, a cable impedance at an input terminal of the signal cable, a length of the signal cable, a measuring accuracy of the electric amplifier, a crosstalk between input-channels of the electric amplifier, an accuracy of further processing of the evaluation unit, and a speed of further processing of the evaluation unit”, they describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. Data gathering, including when limited to particular content does not change its character as information, is also within the realm of abstract ideas. Data gathering has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. See Electric Power.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 1, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim recites the limitations “a computing system with at least one processor". They are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The use of a computer to implement the abstract idea of a mathematical or mental algorithm has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. The implementation on a computing system is described in the specification (underline emphasis added):
'[0030] Transmission link G4 is an evaluation unit that evaluates the digital measuring signal. The evaluation unit comprises a data processing processor, a data memory and a display screen. For evaluation, the digital measuring signal is loadable in a computer program product running on the data processing processor… [0033]… FIG. 3 shows a computer system R for a computer program product C adapted to carry out the method V for determining the measurement uncertainty U of the measuring system S.… computer system R may be a commercially available computer'
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). These limitations are so broad that nothing is known about how the claimed "reconfiguring a measuring system to operate in a cost-effective manner” is performed. The Examiner notes that the claimed limitations are not definitive regarding whether there is reconfiguration and operation of an actual measuring system in a cost-effective manner. As to the limitations "configuration" and "operate", Examiner notes that both the claimed invention and the specification are mute about "configur*" – "initial configuration", "final configuration" – or "operat*". See 'limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations' below.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). As to the "configuration" limitations, Examiner notes that both the claimed invention and the specification are mute about "configur*". As to the limitations "f) based on the determined measurement uncertainty for each transmission link, replacing at least one transmission link in the measuring chain of the initial configuration with a replacement transmission link to form a final configuration… by replacing a relevant transmission link in the measuring chain of the initial configuration", there is no physical but virtual replacement in the application description. The specification reads (underline emphasis added):
'[0052]… To save investment costs, computer program product C replaces the particular identified transmission link G4 by a replacement transmission link G4* said replacement transmission link G4* having relatively higher replacement measurement uncertainty contributions U41*, U42*.
[0053]… To reduce the number of bad parts and, thus, production costs, computer program product C replaces at least one particular transmission link G1, G2 by a replacement transmission link G1*, G2* said replacement transmission link G1*, G2* having a relatively smaller replacement measurement uncertainty contribution U12*-U14*, U21*.
[0054]… essential technical characteristics of a large number of transmission links G1-G4, G1*- G4* are stored in data memory R2. This ensures that at least one equivalent replacement transmission link G1*-G4* is stored for a particular identified transmission link G1-G4'
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, claim 1 recites data gathering, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
Taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Independent claim 8, Step 1: a method (process = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes).
Independent claim 8, Step 2A, Prong One: Claim recites
a) evaluating, by a computing system with one or more processors, a measuring chain of an initial configuration…
c) modeling, by the computing system, the cause-and-effect relationship between the transmission links by applying the sensitivity data to each transmission link in the measuring chain;
d) determining, by the computing system, a measurement uncertainty contribution for each transmission link in the measuring chain based on the modeling of the physical variables transmitted through the input and output terminals
f) evaluating, by the computing system, the final configuration of the measuring chain to ensure that the measurement uncertainty of the measuring system is maintained with a lower cost transmission link
Claim 8 is substantially drawn to mental processes, but for the recitation of generic computer components, (see Independent claim 1, Step 2A Prong One above). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes, then it falls within the "(c) Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (c) Mental processes).
Independent claim 8, Step 2A Prong two: The claim recites the limitations “a computing system with one or more processors", they are interpreted at best as drawn to a generic computer for performing mental processes.
As to the limitations "for reconfiguring a measuring system, wherein the measuring system uses a plurality of transmission links having directly adjacent transmission links in a cause-and-effect relationship to one another to form a measuring chain for detecting a physical measurement variable", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they recite only the idea of a solution or outcome.
As to the limitations "a)… of the measuring chain of transmission links that include a sensor, a signal cable connected to the sensor, an electric amplifier connected to the signal cable and an evaluation unit connected to the amplifier via the signal cable to determine evaluation information, which includes each transmission link in the measuring chain evaluated to determine a type of each transmission link and a relative position of each transmission link in the measuring chain of the initial configuration” and "e) based on the determined measurement uncertainty for each transmission link, replacing at least one transmission link in the measuring chain of the initial configuration with a replacement transmission link to form a final configuration… by replacing a relevant transmission link in the measuring chain of the initial configuration", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
As to the limitations "b) automatically accessing, by the computing system from a database, digital information data for each type of transmission link, wherein the digital information data comprises sensitivity data for each transmission link indicating how a change in a physical variable at an input terminal of the transmission link affects a physical variable at an output terminal of the transmission link”, they describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, (see Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong Two above).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 8, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim recites the limitations “a computing system with one or more processors". Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations, (see Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, claim recites data gathering, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
Taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Independent claim 9, Step 1: a method (process = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes).
Independent claim 9, Step 2A, Prong One: Claim recites
a) evaluating, by a computing system with one or more processors, a measuring chain of an initial configuration…
c) determining, by the computing system, an average measurement uncertainty contribution based on the uncertainty contributions of the transmission links of the measuring chain;
d) determining, by the computing system, at least one underperforming transmission link having a measurement uncertainty contribution that exceeds the average measurement uncertainty contribution;
e) determining, by the computing system, a replacement transmission link for the at least one underperforming transmission link having a replacement measurement uncertainty contribution that exceeds the average measurement uncertainty contribution…
g) evaluating, by the computing system, the final configuration of the measuring chain to ensure that the measurement uncertainty of the measuring system is maintained with a lower cost transmission link
Claim 9 is substantially drawn to mental processes, but for the recitation of generic computer components, (see Independent claim 1, Step 2A Prong One above).
As to the limitations "a) evaluating, by a computing system with one or more processors, a measuring chain of an initial configuration", (see Independent claim 1, Step 2A Prong One above).
As to the limitations "c) determining, by the computing system, an average measurement uncertainty contribution based on the uncertainty contributions of the transmission links of the measuring chain; d) determining, by the computing system, at least one underperforming transmission link having a measurement uncertainty contribution that exceeds the average measurement uncertainty contribution; e) determining, by the computing system, a replacement transmission link for the at least one underperforming transmission link having a replacement measurement uncertainty contribution that exceeds the average measurement uncertainty contribution", determinations are mental in nature. As drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, they can be characterized as entailing a user analyzing deciding/determining (judgments, opinions), that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The Examiner notes that the “determining… an average measurement uncertainty contribution" limitation is not elaborated but merely repeated in the Specification. The Specification reads (underline emphasis added):
'[0006] Measurement uncertainty is a function of influencing variables of the transmission links. Each influencing variable is represented as an influence value. A best influence estimate is an arithmetic mean of several influencing variables. According to ISO/IEC Guide 98-3: 2008-09 a model-based procedure is to be carried out to determine the measurement uncertainty wherein first the influencing variables of the transmission links are determined followed by calculating a best influence estimate for each determined influencing variable as well as a measurement uncertainty contribution attributed to the best influence estimate…
[0032]… at least one identified transmission link G1-G4 having a measurement uncertainty contribution U11-U44 that differs from an average measurement uncertainty contribution UO is determined…
[0053]… This finding then leads to the conclusion that the particular transmission links G1, G2 have higher than average measurement uncertainty contributions U12-U14, U21…'
As to the limitations "g) evaluating, by the computing system, the final configuration of the measuring chain to ensure that the measurement uncertainty of the measuring system is maintained with a lower cost transmission link", (see Independent claim 1, Step 2A Prong One above).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes, then it falls within the "(c) Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (c) Mental processes).
Independent claim 9, Step 2A Prong two: The claim recites the limitations “a computing system with one or more processors", they are interpreted at best as drawn to a generic computer for performing mental processes.
As to the limitations "for reconfiguring a measuring system to operate in a cost-effective manner, wherein the measuring system uses a plurality of transmission links having directly adjacent transmission links in a cause-and-effect relationship to one another to form a measuring chain for detecting a physical measurement variable", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they recite only the idea of a solution or outcome.
As to the limitations "a)… of the measuring chain of transmission links that include a sensor, a signal cable connected to the sensor, an electric amplifier connected to the signal cable and an evaluation unit connected to the amplifier via the signal cable to determine evaluation information, which includes each transmission link in the measuring chain evaluated to determine a type of each transmission link and a relative position of each transmission link in the measuring chain of the initial configuration” and "f) replacing the underperforming transmission link in the measuring chain of the initial configuration with the replacement transmission link to form a final configuration in a way that ensures a performance of the respective replacement transmission link while maintaining the same production costs of the measuring chain relative to the cost of the measuring chain of the initial configuration… by replacing a relevant transmission link in the measuring chain of the initial configuration", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
As to the limitations "b) automatically accessing, by the computing system from a database, digital information data for each type of transmission link, wherein the digital information data describes an uncertainty contribution that amounts to a magnitude of an effect of each transmission link on a measurement uncertainty of the measuring system”, they describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, (see Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong Two above).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 9, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim recites the limitations “a computing system with one or more processors". Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, (see Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations, (see Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, claim recites data gathering, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
Taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims Step 2A, Prong One: Dependent claims are substantially drawn to mental processes as their independent claim. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above).
As to the limitations "2… concluding, for each relevant transmission link whether the measurement uncertainty of the measuring system is improved with a lower cost transmission link to replace a transmission link in the measuring chain of the initial configuration", "3… identifying a significant transmission link, which is a transmission link in the measuring chain of the initial design having an uncertainty contribution that accounts for at least 80% of the magnitude of the measurement uncertainty of the measuring chain of the initial configuration", and "4… identifying a significant transmission link, which is a transmission link in the measuring chain of the initial design having an uncertainty contribution that accounts for at least 80% of the magnitude of the measurement uncertainty of the measuring chain of the initial design", as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, they can be characterized as entailing a user analyzing (observations, evaluations) and concluding (judgments, opinions), i.e., processing information and/or data, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The Specification reads (underline emphasis added):
“[0052]… The user recognizes that the measurement uncertainty contributions U41, U42 for the relevant influencing variables E41, E42 "rounding errors in further processing" and "speed of further processing" are the smallest. This finding leads to the conclusion that the particular identified transmission link G4 which is an evaluation unit is overdesigned. To save investment costs, computer program product C replaces the particular identified transmission link G4 by a replacement transmission link G4* said replacement transmission link G4* having relatively higher replacement measurement uncertainty contributions U41*, U42*.
[0053]… This finding then leads to the conclusion that the particular transmission links G1, G2 have higher than average measurement uncertainty contributions U12-U14, U21“
As to the limitations "10… using the age value data to determine the measurement uncertainty contribution for each transmission link", determinations are mental in nature. As drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, they can be characterized as entailing a user analyzing deciding/determining (judgments, opinions), that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The Specification reads (underline emphasis added):
‘[0032]… In step d), at least one identified transmission link G1-G4 having a measurement uncertainty contribution U11-U44 that differs from an average measurement uncertainty contribution U0 is determined’
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes, then it falls within the "(c) Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (c) Mental processes).
Dependent claims Step 2A Prong two: As to the limitations "3… replacing all of the transmission links in the measuring chain of the initial design in a way that ensures the performance of the significant transmission link while reducing production costs of the measuring chain relative to the cost of the measuring chain of the initial design" and "4… and replacing all of the transmission links in the measuring chain of the initial configuration in a way that ensures the performance of the significant transmission link while saving the investment cost of the measuring chain relative to the cost of the measuring chain of the initial design", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
As to the limitations “10… accessing data describing age value data for one or more links in the plurality of transmission links”, they further the data gathering of its independent claim. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong Two above). As to the limitations "6… displaying on an output unit, the measurement uncertainty of the measuring chain determined in substep f)”, they are considered generic displaying. Data gathering and displaying have not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. See Electric Power.
As to the limitations "7… operating the measuring system with each of the respective replacement transmission links", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they recite only the idea of a solution or outcome.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Dependent claims Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations, (see Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the data gathering and displaying limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Examiner notes that both the claimed invention and the specification are mute about operating the measuring system.
Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 contain allowable subject matter. They will be allowed once all outstanding rejections/objections are traversed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
none of the references cited taken either alone or in combination and with the prior art of record disclose
claim 1, “… an initial configuration of the measuring chain of transmission links that include a sensor, a signal cable connected to the sensor, an electric amplifier connected to the signal cable and an evaluation unit connected to the amplifier via the signal cable…
c) modeling… the cause-and-effect relationship between the transmission links by applying the essential technical characteristic to each transmission link…
d) determining… a measurement uncertainty contribution for each transmission link in the measuring chain based on the modeling performed in step c) of the cause-and-effect relationship transmitted through the input and output terminals of each transmission link…
f) based on the determined measurement uncertainty for each transmission link, replacing at least one transmission link… with a replacement transmission link to form a final configuration… by replacing a relevant transmission link… g) evaluating… the final configuration… to ensure that the measurement uncertainty of the measuring system is maintained with a lower cost transmission link…”,
claim 8, “… an initial configuration of the measuring chain of transmission links that include a sensor, a signal cable connected to the sensor, an electric amplifier connected to the signal cable and an evaluation unit connected to the amplifier via the signal cable…
c) modeling… the cause-and-effect relationship between the transmission links by applying the sensitivity data to each transmission link…
d) determining… a measurement uncertainty contribution for each transmission link… based on the modeling of the physical variables transmitted through the input and output terminals
e) based on the determined measurement uncertainty for each transmission link, replacing at least one transmission link… with a replacement transmission link to form a final configuration…
f) evaluating… the final configuration… to ensure that the measurement uncertainty of the measuring system is maintained with a lower cost transmission link…”,
claim 9, “… an initial configuration of the measuring chain of transmission links that include a sensor, a signal cable connected to the sensor, an electric amplifier connected to the signal cable and an evaluation unit connected to the amplifier via the signal cable…
d) determining… at least one underperforming transmission link having a measurement uncertainty contribution that exceeds the average measurement uncertainty contribution;
e) determining… a replacement transmission link for the at least one underperforming transmission link having a replacement measurement uncertainty contribution that exceeds the average measurement uncertainty contribution;
f) replacing the underperforming transmission link… with the replacement transmission link to form a final configuration in a way that ensures a performance of the respective replacement transmission link while maintaining the same production costs…
g) evaluating… the final configuration… to ensure that the measurement uncertainty of the measuring system is maintained with a lower cost transmission link…”,
in combination with the remaining steps, elements, and features of the claimed invention. Also, there is no motivation to combine none of these references to meet these limitations. It is for these reasons that Applicant's invention defines over the prior art of record.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Claim Objections, the amendment corrected all deficiencies.
Regarding the rejections under 112(b), the amendment did not correct all deficiencies.
Regarding the rejections under 101, Applicant's arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, (see page 7, 2nd paragraph to page 8, 1st paragraph):
‘Step 2A - Prong One… as set forth in the Specification, a physical measuring system comprises a chain of interdependent hardware links (e.g., sensor, cable, amplifier), each with numerous "influencing variables" that degrade signal accuracy (Spec., [0026]-[0030]). Crucially, these variables are governed by complex physical and electrical interdependencies, such as how ambient temperature and physical aging alter the measurement sensitivity of a piezoelectric sensor (Spec., [0027]), how cable impedance shifts when a signal cable is not terminated with a wave resistance (Spec., [0028]), and how physical crosstalk occurs between input channels of an electric amplifier (Spec., [0029]).
The claimed method goes far beyond what a human could practically perform. Claim 1(b) recites "automatically accessing... digital information data" including specific, physical, and electrical properties like "cable impedance" and "crosstalk between input-channels of the electric amplifier." Step (c) then requires "modeling... the cause-and-effect relationship between the transmission links" by applying these characteristics.
A human cannot mentally model the complex, interdependent "cause-and-effect relationship" that arises when the effects of the characteristics of one component (e.g., an "age- related variation in measurement sensitivity of the piezoelectric sensor" as noted in Spec. [0027]) propagate through the entire hardware chain, affecting subsequent components. This modeling is a specific, computational simulation of a physical hardware system, not a generic mental task of evaluation…’
The MPEP reads (underline emphasis added):
‘2106.04(b) Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena & Products of Nature [R-07.2022], III. MENTAL PROCESSES… A. A Claim With Limitation(s) That Cannot Practically be Performed in the Human Mind Does Not Recite a Mental Process… Examples of claims that do not recite mental processes because they cannot be practically performed in the human mind include: • a claim to a method for calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time of reception of satellite signals, where the claimed GPS receiver calculated pseudoranges that estimated the distance from the GPS receiver to a plurality of satellites, SiRF… B. A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process. If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See, e.g., Benson… (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys… (holding that claims to the mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper")'.
SiRF2 Tech. reads (bold emphasis added):
‘A GPS receiver is a machine and is integral to each of the claims at issue. Claim 1 of the ’801 patent is expressly directed in its preamble to “calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver.” ’801 patent col.12 ll.28-29. It also refers to “computing absolute position” by updating an “estimate of position of the GPS receiver,” providing an estimate of the time at which a GPS receiver receives a plurality of satellite signals, and computing the position “of the GPS receiver.” Id. col.12 ll. 28-40. Further, claim 1 requires “pseudoranges” that estimate the distance from “the GPS receiver to a plurality of GPS satellites.” Id. col.12 ll.31-32. Pseudoranges, which are the distances or estimated distances between satellites and a GPS receiver, can exist only with respect to a particular GPS receiver that receives the satellite signals. Claim 1 of the ’187 patent is similarly tied to a GPS receiver. It requires the estimation of “states” that are “associated with a satellite signal receiver,” and the formation of a “dynamic model… to compute [the] position of the satellite signal receiver.” See ’187 patent col.20 ll.46-54. It is clear that the methods at issue could not be performed without the use of a GPS receiver; indeed without a GPS receiver it would be impossible to generate pseudoranges or to determine the position of the GPS receiver whose position is the precise goal of the claims… there is no evidence here that the calculations here can be performed entirely in the human mind. Here, as described, the use of a GPS receiver is essential to the operation of the claimed methods. In conclusion, we hold that the claims at issue are properly directed to patentable subject matter as they explicitly require the use of a particular machine (a GPS receiver) and could not be performed without the use of such a receiver’.
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because Applicant presents no evidence that the claim limitations (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101… Step 2A, Prong One above) cannot practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, or that the claim limitations explicitly require the use of a particular machine, a GPS receiver as in SIRF for example (see MPEP 2106.04(b) or SIRF supra).
As to the limitations "c) modeling, by the computing system, the cause-and-effect relationship between the transmission links by applying the essential technical characteristic to each transmission link in the measuring chain", (see Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above).
Applicant further argues, (see page 8, 2nd paragraph to page 12, last paragraph):
‘… claims are "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the practice of' designing high-precision measurement systems. See Enfish… invention provides a specific, computer-implemented tool to solve the technical problems of "overdesigned" systems and costly "bad parts" (Spec., [0007]) that arise from unknown measurement uncertainties in physical hardware. Therefore, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea but to a specific improvement in a technological field.
Step 2A - Prong Two…
The claimed method is a specific tool that solves a technical problem rooted in the physical world: the inefficient and error-prone design of complex measurement systems (Spec., [0008]). The method achieves a technical improvement to the technology of measurement instrumentation itself by transforming a generic initial configuration into a specific, optimized "final configuration" (claim 1(f)).
The Examiner contends that this replacement is "merely virtual" and thus lacks physical integration. Applicant respectfully disagrees. This output is not an abstract number; it is a concrete plan for a technically improved physical system that can be built or reconfigured to either maintain accuracy at a lower cost (Spec., [0052]) or improve accuracy for a given cost (Spec., [0053]). By systematically identifying and mitigating localized errors within an interdependent analog-to-digital chain, the method provides a real-world solution to prevent manufacturing production facilities from being structurally "overdesigned" and directly minimizes the generation of expensive "bad parts" during industrial production (Spec., [0007]).
This is analogous to the claims found eligible in Diamond v. Diehr… Here, any mathematical calculations of uncertainty are not performed in a vacuum; they are integrated into the specific technological process of configuring a hardware measurement chain to improve its performance and cost-effectiveness. The claims apply the data to model a physical system and produce a tangible, technical output (an optimized system configuration) thereby satisfying Step 2A, Prong Two.
STEP 2B (Alice/Mayo Test)
… The unconventional process begins by evaluating the physical components of the measuring chain and automatically accessing their essential technical characteristics, as recited in steps (a) and (b). This is not generic data, but rather concrete physical and electrical properties like cable impedance mismatches and crosstalk between input-channels, as detailed in the Specification at paragraphs [0027]-[0029] and [0056]-[0058].
The process then uses this specific data to computationally model the cause-and-effect relationship between the physical hardware links. This step simulates how a change in one link affects the others. Based on this complex model, the method determines a measurement uncertainty contribution for each transmission link, as recited in step (d). This granular, per- component analysis is a specific and unconventional approach that is far more sophisticated than a simple calculation of overall system error. Finally, this detailed, per-link uncertainty analysis is used to identify and replace specific links to form a final configuration that achieves a targeted technical outcome, such as maintaining accuracy while lowering cost.
This specific, ordered combination is not a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. It is a specific, inventive application of computer technology to solve a technical problem in a way that was not previously done, improving the technology of measurement systems by providing a precise, data-driven tool for optimization. While the Examiner notes the replacement is virtual within the computer software execution, the inventive concept is the generation of the specific, optimized final configuration, which enables a user to make the correct physical hardware change to achieve a real-world technical benefit (i.e., resolving hardware drift and preventing over-engineered industrial production lines). The claimed method provides the specific knowledge of which link to replace and what to replace it with-a non-obvious and technically valuable output. This represents significantly more than simply applying an abstract idea on a generic computer.
… Independent claim 8
STEP 2A (Alice/Mayo Test)
Step 2A - Prong One
The arguments that claim 1 is not directed to a judicial exception apply with equal force to independent claim 8. Moreover, claim 8 provides additional specificity that further roots the claimed method in a concrete, technological application. For example, step (b) of claim 8 recites automatically accessing "sensitivity data" that indicates "how a change in a physical variable at an input terminal of the transmission link affects a physical variable at an output terminal" of that link. This is not abstract data, but rather a specific technical parameter that quantifies the physical performance and input-output response of a hardware component. The specification provides a concrete example of such data, noting that the measuring sensitivity of a piezoelectric sensor changes with physical factors like ambient temperature and its physical age (Spec., para. [0027]). The claimed method is thus focused on a specific computational simulation of a physical system by using data that represents the physical realities of the hardware, which is a technological process, not a mental one.
Step 2A - Prong Two
… limitations integrate that idea into a practical application. The use of specific sensitivity data, as discussed above, provides for a more accurate and robust model of the physical measuring chain. This improved model leads to a more effective technical improvement, namely, the generation of a more reliable and optimized final configuration for the physical system. This constitutes a practical application that improves the technology of measurement instrumentation.
Step 2B
Finally, the ordered combination of limitations in claim 8 provides an inventive concept that is significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The unconventional aspect of claim 8 lies in the specific use of sensitivity data to model the cause-and-effect relationship of the physical hardware links. This is a more precise and sophisticated modeling approach than using only generalized characteristics. By modeling how the output of one physical component is affected by its input and how the overall chain is affected by the characteristics of each link in the chain, the method provides a more accurate determination of each link's specific uncertainty contribution. This leads to a more reliable and valuable technical output in the form of a final configuration, which is a specific, unconventional solution to a known technological problem.
Independent claim 9
STEP 2A (Alice/Mayo Test)
Step 2A - Prong One
… Claim 9 further recites a specific, technological process for diagnosing and improving a physical system, which is not an abstract idea. The claim recites a specific, computational diagnostic method: step (c) requires determining an "average measurement uncertainty contribution" which serves as a technical performance benchmark, and step (d) requires determining "at least one underperforming transmission link" by identifying a link whose uncertainty contribution "exceeds the average." This is not a generic mental evaluation but a specific, rule-based computational process. The Specification provides a concrete example of this technical process, explaining that this comparison leads to the conclusion that specific transmission links G1 and G2 have higher than average uncertainty contributions, identifying them as the source of errors that lead to bad parts and increased production costs (Spec., para. [0053]). This automated diagnostic process is a technical solution, not an abstract mental one.
Step 2A - Prong Two
Even if claim 9 were considered to be directed to an abstract idea, which is not conceded, the claim integrates that idea into a practical application that improves measurement system technology. The specific diagnostic process of calculating an average uncertainty and identifying components that exceed this benchmark is directly applied to the problem of optimizing a physical hardware chain. The result of this process is the identification of a specific hardware link to be replaced to solve a real-world problem, such as reducing the "number of bad parts" (Spec., para. [0053]). Thus, claim 9 is directed towards a practical application.
Step 2B
Finally, claim 9 recites an inventive concept by claiming an unconventional ordered combination of limitations. The inventive concept here lies in the specific logic of using a calculated system-wide average as a dynamic threshold to automatically identify specific, underperforming hardware links. This specific algorithm provides a concrete technical advantage over prior art methods by pinpointing the exact source of a problem within a complex hardware system. This automated diagnosis is not a well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field. Rather, it is a specific improvement to the technology of system maintenance and optimization, providing significantly more than simply "evaluating" a system on a generic computer…’
The MPEP reads (underline emphasis added):
‘2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity [R-10.2019] When determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may consider the following… (3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output)… Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated… iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power’
"2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment [R-10.2019]… limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application… vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power… a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu3… (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power”.
Examiner's response: Applicant’s arguments based on Enfish4 (Enfish hereinafter), are not applicable, because the claimed invention does not improve the operation of any underlying computer system. The Enfish claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality itself. See, for example, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, '… As in DDR Holdings, the focus of the claims in Enfish was on “an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity…'. Therefore the claimed invention is clearly distinguished from that of Enfish.
A contradictory argument cannot be found persuasive. Applicant’s arguments ‘a concrete plan for a technically improved physical system that can be built or reconfigured’ and/or ‘inventive concept is the generation of the specific, optimized final configuration, which enables a user to make the correct physical hardware change to achieve a real-world technical benefit… method provides the specific knowledge of which link to replace and what to replace it’ contradict Applicant’s argument ‘the method provides a real-world solution’. Nothing ‘that can be built or reconfigured’ or ‘which enables a user to make the correct physical hardware change to achieve a real-world technical benefit’ cannot be ‘a real-world solution’, because no ‘physical hardware’ is changed, built, or reconfigured. The terms "can be" or “enables a user” indicate the lack of a positive recitation of the functionality that is recited. They are merely potential acts that may or may not occur in the future. There is no physical but virtual replacement in the application description. The specification reads (underline emphasis added):
'[0052]… To save investment costs, computer program product C replaces the particular identified transmission link G4 by a replacement transmission link G4* said replacement transmission link G4* having relatively higher replacement measurement uncertainty contributions U41*, U42*.
[0053]… To reduce the number of bad parts and, thus, production costs, computer program product C replaces at least one particular transmission link G1, G2 by a replacement transmission link G1*, G2* said replacement transmission link G1*, G2* having a relatively smaller replacement measurement uncertainty contribution U12*-U14*, U21*.
[0054]… essential technical characteristics of a large number of transmission links G1-G4, G1*- G4* are stored in data memory R2. This ensures that at least one equivalent replacement transmission link G1*-G4* is stored for a particular identified transmission link G1-G4'
Applicant’s arguments based on Diamond v. Diehr (Diehr hereinafter), 450 U.S.175, 177 (1980), are not applicable because the claimed invention does not recite a particular physical transformation of a particular article. Therefore, the claimed invention is clearly distinguished from that of Diehr.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because as to the limitations "1… b) automatically accessing, by the computing system from a database, digital information data for each type of transmission link, wherein the digital information data includes at least one of the following essential technical characteristics: a measuring range, a measuring sensitivity, a measuring accuracy, a cable impedance at an input terminal of the signal cable, a length of the signal cable, a measuring accuracy of the electric amplifier, a crosstalk between input-channels of the electric amplifier, an accuracy of further processing of the evaluation unit, and a speed of further processing of the evaluation unit”, "8… b) automatically accessing, by the computing system from a database, digital information data for each type of transmission link, wherein the digital information data comprises sensitivity data for each transmission link indicating how a change in a physical variable at an input terminal of the transmission link affects a physical variable at an output terminal of the transmission link”, and “9… b) automatically accessing, by the computing system from a database, digital information data for each type of transmission link, wherein the digital information data describes an uncertainty contribution that amounts to a magnitude of an effect of each transmission link on a measurement uncertainty of the measuring system”, they amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h) supra.
Contrary to Applicant's argument 'not generic data, but rather concrete physical and electrical properties like cable impedance mismatches and crosstalk between input-channels… this specific data… claim 8 recites… a specific technical parameter that quantifies the physical performance and input-output response of a hardware component… use of specific sensitivity data‘, data gathering is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry that does not add significantly more. Data gathering, including when limited to particular content does not change its character as information (see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) supra or Electric Power), is also within the realm of abstract ideas.
Examiner counter–arguments of claim 1 apply mutatis mutandis to claim 9
Therefore, the rejections are 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN CARLOS OCHOA whose telephone number is (571)272-2625. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays 9:30AM - 7:00 PM.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached on 571-270-1104. 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.
/JUAN C OCHOA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 Fed. Cir. 2016
2 SiRF Tech., 601 F.3d at 1331-33, 94 USPQ2d at 1616-17
3 Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
4 Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Prosecution Insights