8Notice 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 .
Applicant’s amendments dated 3/2/6 are hereby entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 13-14, 16, and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 13-14, 16, and 21-28 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being and/or a method of organizing human activity.
In regard to Claims 1, 31, and 32 the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or recite a method of organizing human activity in terms of claiming the teaching/training/evaluation of a human subject’s which has been identified by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) as being a method of organizing human activity, in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a method] comprising:
[…]
obtaining information indicative of a local wind condition […];
predicting a trajectory of a sports projectile in dependence on information including the information indicative of the local wind condition; and
causing, at least in part, rendering of guidance to a user based on the predicted trajectory
[…].
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being and/or a method of organizing human activity.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., a hand-portable wind gauge comprising a first, rotatable portion comprising a wind sensor, and wherein the hand-portable wind gauge comprises a second portion configured to be gripped with a first hand while the rotatable portion is rotated by one of: a second hand; other digits of the first hand; or an orientation actuator; a controller comprising at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code embodying Applicant’s abstract idea; these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., a hand-portable wind gauge; a hand-portable wind gauge comprising a first, rotatable portion comprising a wind sensor, and wherein the hand-portable wind gauge comprises a second portion configured to be gripped with a first hand while the rotatable portion is rotated by an orientation actuator; an orientation sensor comprising a non-contact sensor; and/or a controller comprising at least one processor, at least one memory including computer program code embodying Applicant’s abstract idea; these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., F2-3 in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same in regard to the claimed “hand-portable wind gauge”; F17A-B in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same in regard to the claimed “hand-portable wind gauge…orientation actuator”; F16A-B and text regarding same in regard to “orientation sensor”; and F1A-1B in regard to the other identified additional elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image1.png
470
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
122
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. Merely claiming an invention that is “related to hardware” does not necessarily claim patent eligible subject matter under the Mayo test. See from the CAFC’s opinion in, e.g., The Chamberlain Group v. Techtronic Industries (2018-2103; 8/21/19):
PNG
media_image3.png
210
510
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Id., slip. op., page 8.
In other words, Applicant’s claimed abstract idea is not an improvement to any physical machine. And to the extent that Applicant claims a device in addition to that abstract idea (e.g., the “hand-portable wind gauge [that] comprises an orientation actuator…enabling the electric motor to rotate the first portion”), that device is disclosed by the Applicant in such limited detail in its specification that it must be well-known, routine, and convention otherwise said disclosure would not be enabling. The disclosures in Applicant’s specification as to how to make and/or use this device comprises all of two figures (actually one complete figure (F17B) and then the right-most half of another figure (F17A)) and parts of two paragraphs:
PNG
media_image4.png
366
258
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
350
248
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
186
582
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This disclosure is not, by itself, enabling as, e.g., it does not provide sufficient direction as far as how to make and/or use the claimed device. For example, there detail is provided as far as, e.g., how the left and right halves of Figure 17A are supposed to work with one another. There is likewise no detail as far as how Figure 17B works with Figure 17A. For example, how is the internal gear (1704) that is depicted in 17B work as it is depicted on the right-hand part of 17A? How is the output gear (1702) that is depicted in 17B work as it is depicted on the left-hand part of 17A? There is also no depiction in any diagram of “a second portion able to be gripped with a first hand” in terms of how that relates to “the rotatable portion [that] is rotated by the orientation sensor”. There is also no description either physically or logically for the control system for the claimed “electric motor” that drives the “rotatable portion”. In other words, this device must already be well-known, routine, and conventional for this limited disclosure to be enabling and, as such, it does not add “significantly more” to Applicant’s abstract idea and, thereby, fails to render patent eligible subject matter. Therefore, the rejections made under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715