DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 .
2. Status of Application and Claims
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15 and 17-23 are pending.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 were amended or newly added in the Applicant’s filing on 03/03/2025.
Claims 6, 9 and 16 were cancelled in the Applicant’s filing on 03/03/2025.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing on 03/03/2025.
3. Terminal Disclaimer
Examiner asserts that a Terminal Disclaimer is warranted due to the instant application 18/194,634 and US Patent 10,740,846 (formerly application 14/980,707) sharing the same inventive entity and claim language which would otherwise result in a double patenting rejection.
4. Claim Interpretation
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Specifically, the “broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” See MPEP §2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim.” See MPEP §2111.01, citing Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See MPEP §2111, citing In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
As such, claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could” are treated as containing optional language. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. see MPEP §2111.04(II). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See MPEP §2143.03, citing Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009);
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble. See MPEP §2111.02;
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby.” See MPEP §2111.04;
Contingent limitations. See MPEP §2111.04(II);
Printed matter. See MPEP §2111.05; and
Functional language associated with a claim term. See MPEP §2181.
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is not necessarily an exhaustive list of claim language that is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention. Applicant should review all claims for additional claim interpretation issues.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
receiving, by a rendering system via one or more communication networks, a plurality of data describing an event from a plurality of sources, the plurality of sources including at least one sensor associated with a vehicle involved in the event, each data in the plurality of data having a different format dependent on at least one of the hardware or software platform used to obtain the data;
determining, by the rendering system, additional data is needed in addition to the plurality of data to generate a rendering of the event, the additional data providing a viewpoint from a mobile device of the event, the mobile device disposed in the vehicle during the event;
Claim 1 recites a method comprising a computer system (i.e., a rendering system) receiving data (i.e., data describing an event) from a sensor and determining additional data (i.e., data providing a viewpoint) is needed from a mobile device. The sensor and mobile device are sources of data for the rendering systems.
Whether the sensor is associated with (i.e., is related to or pertains to) a vehicle and whether the mobile device is disposed in (i.e., located within) the vehicle does not result in a structural difference (i.e., the sensor and mobile device are not component elements of the computer system) and does not result in a functional difference (i.e., the computer system still receives data describing an event and data providing a viewpoint).
If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114(II), citing Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Additionally, a sensor that transmits data describing an event involving a vehicle is a sensor associated with (i.e., is related to or pertains to) a vehicle by virtue of it recording data associated with the vehicle.
Claims 8 and 15 have similar issues.
5. 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15 and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1
The claimed invention falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter). See MPEP §2106.03.
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE
The claim(s) recite(s) a method, a system comprising instructions, when executed, cause the system and/or computer readable medium comprising instructions, when executed, cause a system to perform a method comprising:
receiving, … , a plurality of data describing an event from a plurality of sources, the plurality of sources including at least one … associated with a vehicle involved in the event, each data in the plurality of data having a different format dependent on at least one of the [means] used to obtain the data;
determining, .., additional data is needed in addition to the plurality of data to generate a rendering of the event, the additional data providing a viewpoint … of the event, … disposed in the vehicle during the event;
receiving, …, the additional data from …;
generating, …, converted data by converting the plurality of data into a predetermined format;
generating, …, combined data by combining the converted data; and
generating, …, the rendering of the event using the combined data and the additional data, the rendering including … depicting the event and an additional event that occurred at least one of prior to the event or subsequent the event.
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing how to generate a rendering of an accident which qualifies as a commercial or legal interaction, a subcategory of certain methods of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Examiner notes that “processing insurance claims for a covered loss or policy event under an insurance policy” is a court-provided example of a commercial or legal interaction. see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) citing Accenture Global Services v. Guidewire Software, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Additionally, these limitations, as drafted, under its broadest interpretation, covers a series of steps that can be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions) which are mental process, a second enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Examiner notes that “’collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind” is a mental process. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Electric Power Group v. Alstom, SA. (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO
The claimed invention recites additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of a rendering system (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), hardware or software platform (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), a communications network (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), a sensor (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), a mobile device (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15) and an animation (Claim(s) 8 and 15).
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; are not applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine; are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Alternately, the additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
STEP 2B
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to (i) adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.07(a)(II). The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent Claim(s) 3-5, 7, 10-12, 14 and 17-21 recite claim limitations that further define the abstract idea recited in respective independent Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15. As such, the dependent claims are also grouped an abstract idea utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
No additional computer components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generically recited computer.
As such, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the judicial exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Accordingly, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible.
Appropriate correction is requested.
6. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15 and 17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creath (US Patent 9,691,189) in view of Duncan (US PG Pub. 2014/0379384) and Smith (US PG Pub 2003/0046003).
Regarding Claim 1, Creath discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a rendering system via one or more communication networks, a plurality of data describing an event (accident data) from a plurality of sources, the plurality of sources including at least one sensor associated with a vehicle involved in the event, each data in the plurality data (audio files and video files) having a different format dependent on at least one of the hardware or software platform (audio files are an audio format and video files are a video format) used to obtain the data. (see col. 5, lines 30 – 53; col. 14, lines 52-64; col. 17, lines 41-53);
determining, by the rendering system, additional data (supplemental data or augmentation data) is needed in addition to the plurality of data to generate a rendering of the event (visual perspective created), the additional data providing a viewpoint (perspective) from a mobile device of the event. (see col. 4, lines 40-54; col. 5, lines 39-50; col. 13, line 41 – col. 14, line 3);
receiving, by the rendering system via one or more communication networks, the additional data (supplemental data or augmentation data) from the mobile device (mobile or handheld device) (see col. 4, lines 40-54; col. 5, lines 39-50; col. 13, line 41 – col. 14, line 3);
generating, by the rendering system, converted data by converting the plurality of data into a predetermined format (accident data or input data). (see col. 3, lines 25-49; col. 5, lines 39-53);
generating, by the rendering system, combined data by combining the converted data (into a visual perspective). (see abstract);
generating, by the rendering system, the rendering of the event using the combined data and the additional data, the rendering including an animation (animated visual perspective) depicting the event (accident). (see abstract; col. 2, lines 4-14),
and an additional event that occurred at least one of prior to the event or subsequent to the event (animated movement of a vehicle symbol from a starting position to an ending position is a sequence of events). (see col. 7, lines 34-47; col. 8, lines 21-29).
Creath does not explicitly teach a method wherein the mobile device was disposed (i.e., inside) the vehicle during the event, although a mobile device, by virtue of being mobile (i.e., portable), can be disposed anywhere including in the vehicle during the event.
Regardless, Duncan discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a system via one or more communication networks, a plurality of data describing an event from a plurality of sources, the plurality of sources including at least one sensor (tracking device) associated with a vehicle involved in the event. (see para. 22); and
receiving, by the system via one or more communication networks, additional data from a mobile device, wherein the mobile device is disposed in the vehicle during the event (see para. 36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Creath by incorporating a mobile device disposed in a vehicle, as disclosed in Duncan, thereby enabling transmission of relevant data pertaining to an event involving a vehicle from the vehicle.
Creath does not explicitly teach a method wherein the plurality of data, each data of the plurality of data having a different format, is converted into a predetermined format. Creath does disclose a method wherein the plurality of data, each data of the plurality of data having a different format (an audio file is an audio format and a video file is a video format) are combined into an accident reconstruction. As such, there is a conversion into a predetermined format, the format of the accident reconstruction.
Regardless, Smith discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a system via one or more communication networks, a plurality of data describing an event (accident) from a plurality of sources, the plurality of sources including at least one sensor (GPS system) associated with a vehicle involved in the event, each data in the plurality of data having a different format dependent on at least one of the hardware (GPS system) or software platform used to obtain the data. (see para. 13); and
generating, by the system, converted data by converting the plurality of data into a predetermined format. (see para. 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Creath and Duncan by acknowledging the different formats of input data dependent upon the platform used to obtain said input data, as disclosed by Smith and converting them into a predetermined format, as disclosed by Smith, thereby converting the input data into usable data.
Regarding Claim 3, Creath discloses a method wherein the at least one sensor includes one or more of a speed sensor, a fuel sensor, a torque sensor, a camera (camera), a brake sensor, a weather sensor (weather data), and a tire pressure sensor. (see col. 7, lines 47-62; col. 14, lines 52 – 64).
Regarding Claim 4, Creath discloses a method wherein the plurality of data describing the event includes one or more of video data (video data), audio data, text data, location data, and photographic data (still images). (see col. 17, lines 41-53).
Regarding Claim 5, Creath discloses a method wherein the additional data includes one or more of video data and audio data collected (recorded) by the mobile device (mobile or handheld device). (see col. 41-52).
Regarding Claim 7, Creath discloses a method wherein the event is a vehicular accident. (see abstract).
Regarding Claims 8, 10-12, 14-16 and 17-20, such claims recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claims. Such claim limitations are therefore rejected using the same art and rationale as previously utilized.
Regarding Claim 21, Creath discloses a method wherein the at least one sensor is part of the mobile device (mobile or handheld device). (see col. 5, lines 39-53).
Regarding Claims 22 and 23, such claims recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claims. Such claim limitations are therefore rejected using the same art and rationale as previously utilized.
7. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered. Some arguments have been rendered moot based upon new references utilized in the current rejection. However, some arguments remain relevant, as they apply to a reference and/or rejection still utilized in the current rejection. Such arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive and are addressed below.
§101 Rejection
Step 2A – Prong One
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is “not ‘directed to’ any purported abstract ideas” and, as such, satisfies Step 2A Prong One of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, p. 8.
“[D]irected to” is not the proper standard for analysis under Step 2A Prong One of the §101 Guidelines.
MPEP §2106.04(a) recites:
Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above. The groupings of abstract ideas, and their relationship to the body of judicial precedent, are further discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The proper standard under Step 2A Prong One of the §101 Guidelines is whether the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claims recite an abstract idea, specifically the claims recite a rendering an accident for insurance claim purposes (see specification, para. 11) which qualifies as a commercial or legal interaction, a subcategory of certain methods of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
The claims also recite a mental process, a series of steps that can be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions), a second enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Applicant further argues:
Moreover, the MPEP provides that claimed subject matter cannot fall in the mental process grouping if the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. MPEP 2106.04(a)- (a)(2)(III). More particularly, claims are found ineligible under the mental process grouping where they recite subject matter involving observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that could be performed mentally or with pen and paper and happens to be applied with a computer. Id. Conversely, the claims do not recite subject matter that involves observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that could be performed mentally or with pen and paper. For instance, the claimed steps require a computer. There is no converting data to a predetermined format from a plurality of different formats dependent on at least one of the hardware or software platform used to obtain the data without a computer. As such, the claims do not recite a mental process. See Arguments, p. 8 – emphasis added.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims that recite limitations “that cannot practically be performed in the human mind” are not mental processes. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). For example, a limitation that cannot be practically performed in the human mind is “detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets” and “rendering a halftone image of a digital image by comparing, pixel by pixel, the digital image against a blue noise mask, where the method required the manipulation of computer data structures (e.g., the pixels of a digital image and a two-dimensional array known as a mask) and the output of a modified computer data structure.” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The examples provided require a computer. A computer is inherent to the underlying process (e.g., there is no network traffic, data packets or pixels without a computer). This is not the case with the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “converting data to a predetermined format from a plurality of different formats dependent on at least one of the hardware or software platform used to obtain the data without a computer.”
A human being can convert data to a predetermined format from a plurality of different formats dependent on at least one of the hardware or software platform used to obtain the data without a computer. A human being could receive data recorded in Spanish and translate it to English, receive text data (i.e., two) and covert it to numerical data (i.e., 2), or receive metric measurements and convert it into imperial measurements. Reformatting data is not inherent to the underlying process.
Admittedly, performance on a computer would make the computations and calculations faster but relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (U.S. 2014), 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (“use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions” is not an inventive concept).
Step 2A – Prong Two
Applicant argues that additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and, as such, satisfies Step 2A Prong Two of the §101 Guidelines. see Arguments, pp. 8-9
Specifically, Applicant argues:
When "the limitations containing the [purported] judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim" are evaluated together, the claims integrate any purported abstract ideas into a practical application. Here, the claims recite distinct features and the relationships between those features that together provide improvements to the technical field of computer graphics. Specification, at paras. [0003]-[0005]. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing different data obtained from vehicle sensors and a mobile device disposed in the vehicle to be used to generate a rendering of an event regardless of the format in which the data was input by the sensor used to collect the data. See Arguments, pp. 8-9 – emphasis added.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
An improvement over the prior art is insufficient to satisfy Step 2A Prong Two.
The closest indication of whether additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application include to an improvement over the prior art is that the additional elements include an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. See §2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
However, MPEP §2106.05(a) recites:
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. – emphasis added.
Neither the specification nor the prior art provides evidence that there is a technical problem to be solved. Additionally, the specification does not provide evidence that, assuming there was a technical problem to be solved, that the claimed invention has solved the technical problem via an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology.
For example, if the claimed invention improved computer technology by enabling conversion of data formats (i.e., the technical solution) when existing computer technology was incapable of converting data formats (i.e., the technical problem), that should be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art based upon the specification. But there is no evidence of a technical problem or a technical solution in the specification.
Additionally, MPEP §2106.05(f)(1) recites:
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. – emphasis added.
Assuming there was a technical problem, the claims, as written, fail to recite the details of how a solution to the technical problem was accomplished. For example, if the claimed invention improved computer technology by enabling conversion of data formats when existing computer technology was incapable of converting data formats, the claims need to recite the details of how a solution to the technical problem was accomplished.
MPEP §2106.04(d) recites:
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); [and]
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Examiner asserts that the additional elements amount to merely (1) including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or alternatively, (2) merely links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is analogous to Example 42: Method for Transmission of Notifications When Medical Records Are Updated and tries to establish eligibility through a perceived similarity to Example 42. See Arguments, pp. 8-9.
These arguments are acknowledged but are not found persuasive. Office Examples are meant to be for training purposes and do not have the force of legal precedent.
Example 42 is an improvement to messaging technology based upon conversion of data transmissions into a standardized format for networked devices.
Example 42 was found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by virtue of improving the functioning of computers or other technology. As in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com (Fed. Cir. 2014), Examples 37 and 42 are solutions “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Example 42 does not demonstrate integration of an abstract idea into a practical application just because they are improvements over the prior art but because they are directed to addressing technological deficiencies in prior art systems thereby improving the functioning of the prior art systems (i.e., computers).
However, the specification in the instant case does not provide evidence that that the claimed invention is directed to solve a technological problem via an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology.
Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is analogous, the court in Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA (Fed. Cir. 2016) stated:
The claims here are unlike the claims in Enfish. There, we relied on the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvements and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas” (in Alice, as in so many other § 101 cases, the abstract ideas being the creation and manipulation of legal obligations such as contracts involved in fundamental economic practices). Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. That distinction, the Supreme Court recognized, has common-sense force even if it may present line-drawing challenges because of the programmable nature of ordinary existing computers. In Enfish, we applied the distinction to reject the § 101 challenge at stage one because the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Bascom, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11687, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. see Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) – emphasis added.
The claimed invention is not an improvement to computer technology or computer functionality. Rather, the claimed invention is applying a computer’s existing capabilities to implement a particular abstract idea. As in Electric Power Group, the focus of the claimed invention is not on an improvement in computers as tools but on improving an abstract idea (i.e., visual reconstruction of events using data from a plurality of sources) that use computers as tools.
Step 2B
Applicant argues that the additional elements amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea as the additional elements are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry” and, as such, satisfies Step 2B of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, pp. 9-10.
Specifically, Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that, even assuming arguendo that the claims can be interpreted as being directed to an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), the claims contain elements that, when considered in combination, amount to "significantly more" than the alleged judicial exception. Moreover, the claims contain substantial elements beyond merely a "generic computer" that, when considered in combination, do not preempt others from practicing the purported abstract idea to which the claims are allegedly directed. See Arguments, p. 9 – emphasis added.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP §2106.04 recites:
While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B). Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1150, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2015). It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10-11 n.14 (1981) (“We rejected in Flook the argument that because all possible uses of the mathematical formula were not pre-empted, the claim should be eligible for patent protection”). See also Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics, 839 F.3d at 1150, 120 USPQ2d at 1483; FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1320-21, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Sequenom, 788 F.3d at 1379, 115 USPQ2d at 1158. Several Federal Circuit decisions, however, have noted the absence of preemption when finding claims eligible under the Alice/Mayo test. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102-03 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-52, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016). – emphasis added.
As such, assertions that claimed invention does not preempt use of the abstract idea outside the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Applicant further argues:
The Amdocs Court concluded that the claim recited "significantly more" than the purported abstract idea because, even with generic components, it is "tied to a specific structure of various components...and does not merely combine the components in a generic manner, but instead purposefully arranges the components in a distributed architecture to achieve a technological solution to a technological problem." Amdocs, at 1301.
Similarly, even if the claims at hand recite components that individually perform generic functions, as the Office asserts (which Applicant does not concede), these elements, when considered in combination with the other elements of the claim, amount to "significantly more." The claims recite the components as operating in a purposeful arrangement to achieve a technological solution. When considered as a whole, the steps recited in the claims amount to significantly more than the purported abstract idea. See Arguments, p. 9.
The Examiner respectfully agrees in part and disagrees in part.
The Examiner agrees that a claimed invention may recite “’significantly more’ than the purported abstract idea because, even with generic components, it is ‘tied to a specific structure of various components...and does not merely combine the components in a generic manner, but instead purposefully arranges the components in a distributed architecture to achieve a technological solution to a technological problem.’” However, MPEP §2106.05(a) recites:
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. – emphasis added.
Neither the specification nor the prior art provides evidence that there is a technical problem to be solved (i.e., that there was a technological obstacle or inability for technology to perform the recited method). Additionally, the specification does not provide evidence that, assuming there was a technical problem to be solved, that the claimed invention has solved the technical problem via an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology (e.g., the claimed invention improved technology to overcome said obstacle or increase technological capabilities to perform the recited method).
Applicant further argues:
Finally, the claimed features are not widely prevalent or in common use. Thus, the claims do not recite well-understood, routine, conventional activity. As such, even if the claims were to be directed to an abstract idea, which the Applicant denies, the claims recite significantly more. See Arguments, p. 10 – emphasis added.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
To qualify as “significantly more” than the abstract idea, computer implementation must involve more than performance of “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities” previously known in the computer industry. However, the functions performed by the computer system in the claimed invention are well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions.
As an illustrative example, Claim 1 recites:
receiving, by a rendering system via one or more communication networks, a plurality of data describing an event from a plurality of sources, the plurality of sources including at least one sensor associated with a vehicle involved in the event, each data in the plurality of data having a different format dependent on at least one of the hardware or software platform used to obtain the data;
Receiving data (i.e., a plurality of data) over a network is a court-established well-understood, routine and conventional computerized activity. See MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). Additionally, mere data gathering is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
determining, by the rendering system, additional data is needed in addition to the plurality of data to generate a rendering of the event, the additional data providing a viewpoint from a mobile device of the event, the mobile device disposed in the vehicle during the event;
Performing repetitive calculations (i.e., determining data is needed) is a court-established well-understood, routine and conventional computerized activity. See MPEP §2106.05(d)(II).
Examiner also notes that retrieving information (i.e., data) from memory is a court-established well-understood, routine and conventional computerized activity. See MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). If you attempt to retrieve information from memory and the information is not in memory, that is a determination that additional data is needed.
receiving, by the rendering system via one or more communication networks, the additional data from the mobile device;
Receiving and transmitting data (i.e., instructions and additional data) over a network is a court-established well-understood, routine and conventional computerized activity. See MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). Additionally, mere data gathering is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
receiving, by the rendering system via one or more communication networks, the additional data from the mobile device;
Performing repetitive calculations (i.e., converting data) is a court-established well-understood, routine and conventional computerized activity. See MPEP §2106.05(d)(II).
Examiner also notes that converting data in general is well-understood, routine and conventional computerized activity.
See Prokoski (US PG Pub. 2001/0033661), Claim 1; Smith (US PG Pub. 2003/0046003), para. 13 and 146; Wahibin (US PG Pub. 2004/0103005), para. 666; and Hiemer (US PG Pub. 2004/0243368), para. 26.
generating, by the rendering system, combined data by combining the converted data; and
Storing information (i.e., combined data) from memory is a court-established well-understood, routine and conventional computerized activity. See MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). Additionally, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
generating, by the rendering system, the rendering of the event using based on the combined data and the additional data, the rendering including an animation depicting the event and an additional event that occurred at least one of prior to the event or subsequent the event.
Interacting via a graphical user interface or web browser (i.e., displaying a rendering) is a court-established well-understood, routine and conventional computerized activity. See MPEP §2106.05(d)(II).
The claimed invention may be applying those computer functions in a novel and/or non-obvious way to enable the abstract idea but the computer functions, the underlying computer functions, are well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions. Therefore, the additional claim limitations do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
8. 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 JASON M BORLINGHAUS whose telephone number is (571)272-6924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Calvin L Hewitt II can be reached on 571-272-6709. 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.
/Jason M. Borlinghaus/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692 June 5, 2025