DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: an acceleration acquiring section (corresponding in the instant disclosure to 121), a speed calculating section (corresponding in the instant disclosure to 123), a maximum running speed analyzing section (corresponding in the instant disclosure to 125), and an outputting section (corresponding in the instant disclosure to 126) in claims 1-15, a displaying section (corresponding in the instant disclosure to 140) in claims 2-3, a correcting section (corresponding in the instant disclosure to 122) in claims 4-5, a filtering section (corresponding in the instant disclosure to 124) in claims 8-9, and a storing section (corresponding in the instant disclosure to 130) in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-15 are directed to a speed measuring device, which is considered to be a machine Therefore claims 1-15 each fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-15 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.
Claim 1 is directed to a speed measuring device that measures a running speed of a work machine comprising “an acceleration acquiring section that acquires a running acceleration of the work machine outputted from an acceleration sensor attached to the work machine;
a speed calculating section that calculates a running speed of the work machine by integrating the running acceleration;
a maximum running speed analyzing section that identifies a maximum running speed of the work machine from a history of the running speed; and
an outputting section that outputs the maximum running speed,
wherein the maximum running speed analyzing section detects, among a history of the running acceleration, a change point where the work machine transits from an accelerating state into a steady running state, and
wherein the maximum running speed analyzing section identifies the maximum running speed from a history of the running speed in a period after the change point” which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention, in at least paragraphs [0021]-[0041] of the instant disclosure, teach the calculating, identifying, detecting, and analyzing data to be mathematical processes and give no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. In addition, the acquiring and outputting could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mathematical concept” group and the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 1 further recites the additional elements of “a work machine”, “an acceleration sensor” and the computer element structures of the acceleration acquiring section, the speed calculating section, the maximum running speed analyzing section, and outputting section. The additional elements of the work machine, the acceleration sensor, and the computer element structures of the acceleration acquiring section, the speed calculating section, the maximum running speed analyzing section, and outputting section are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. Note that the work machine is not considered to be a positively recited part of the claimed system. The additional element of the acceleration sensor is considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. The acceleration sensor limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The computer element structures of the acceleration acquiring section, the speed calculating section, the maximum running speed analyzing section, and outputting section are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements of “a work machine”, “an acceleration sensor” and the computer element structures of the acceleration acquiring section, the speed calculating section, the maximum running speed analyzing section, and outputting section do not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of the work machine, the acceleration sensor, and the computer element structures of the acceleration acquiring section, the speed calculating section, the maximum running speed analyzing section, and outputting section are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. Note that the work machine is not considered to be a positively recited part of the claimed system. The additional element of the acceleration sensor is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The acceleration sensor limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The computer element structures of the acceleration acquiring section, the speed calculating section, the maximum running speed analyzing section, and outputting section are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Claims 2-3 recite the further additional element of “a displaying section”. The additional element of the display is recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer system. The displaying represents extrasolution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim and post solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claims 4-15 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 1 with only the addition of further computer elements which are considered to be recited at a high level of generality and can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kurokami et al. (US PGPub 2020/0277757 A1), Chiba et al. (US PGPub 2020/0277751 A1), Hoshino et al. (US PGPub 2016/0076227 A1), and Dybel et al. (4,633,720) teach systems with similarities to the disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER E S BAHLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JENNIFER BAHLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853