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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the original filing of 05/26/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention, when the claims are taken as a whole, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims: For claim 1, the claim recites a method which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: Claim 1, in part, recites
“identifying a follow-up action based on the one or more characteristics”, “processing the first data set to detect an event and one or more characteristics of the event” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, identifying a follow-up action covers someone mentally writing down an action.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements:
“receiving a first data set;” amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“executing the follow-up action, wherein the event includes one or more of a weather event, an earth event, or a space event” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, 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. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
“”
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“receiving a first data set.” amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“executing the follow-up action, wherein the event includes one or more of a weather event, an earth event, or a space event” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, 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. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, the claims do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
2A – Prong 1: Claim 8 / 15, in part, recites
“identifying a follow-up action based on the one or more characteristics”, “processing the first data set to detect an event and one or more characteristics of the event” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, identifying a follow-up action covers someone mentally writing down an action.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements:
“receiving a first data set;.” amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“executing the follow-up action, wherein the event includes one or more of a weather event, an earth event, or a space event” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, 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. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
“one or more processors configured to”, “…computer-readable medium storing one or more processor-executable instructions which, when executed, by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform the operations” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, 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. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“receiving a first data set” amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“executing the follow-up action, wherein the event includes one or more of a weather event, an earth event, or a space event” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, 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. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
“one or more processors configured to”, “…computer-readable medium storing one or more processor-executable instructions which, when executed, by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform the operations” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, 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. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the follow-up action is identified by using one or more data structures that map each of a plurality of preconditions to a respective set of one or more follow-up actions, each of the preconditions being based on at least one of the detected characteristics of the event.” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981).
Claim 3 recites “wherein: the follow-up action includes presenting options for additional data to a user;.” amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)). Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93’
“and executing the follow-up action includes retrieving a second data set in response to a selection by the user of one of the options” amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)) .“Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362”
Claim 4 recites “wherein the follow-up action incudes determining whether the first data set is capable of being used to evaluate a model corresponding to the event, the determining including generating a result value by evaluating the model based on the first data set and detecting whether the result value satisfies a predetermined condition.” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, identifying a follow-up action covers someone mentally writing down an action.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the follow-up action includes generating a request to perform human-assisted tagging of the first data set and transmitting the request to at least one of a utility for performing a human-assisted tagging of the first data set, and/or a scheduler for scheduling the human-assisted tagging of the first data set.” The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981).
Claim 6 recites “wherein the follow-up action includes identifying a second location based on a first location of the event” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, “selecting a radar that is configured to observe the second location” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, identifying a follow-up action covers someone mentally writing down an action.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the follow-up action includes training a machine learning model based on the first data set or performing further analysis on the initial data set.” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claims 9-14 are similar in scope as claims 2-7, respectively; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claim(s) 1-2, 3, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aggarwal (US 2018/0322380).
Claim 1. Aggarwal discloses a method, comprising: receiving a first data set (Assistant modules 122 may perform these tasks or services based on:….an ability to access other information (e.g., weather or traffic conditions, news, stock prices, sports scores, user schedules, transportation schedules, retail prices, etc.) from a variety of information sources) ([0027], [0051]); processing the first data set to detect an event and one or more characteristics of the event (An agent executing at assistant module 122B may be configured to obtain updates associated with the travel plans from search server system 180. For example, the agent of assistant module 122B may send a query to search module 182 for status information about the particular flight and in response, the agent of assistant module 122B may receive information indicating that the particular flight is delayed thirty minutes from its originally scheduled departure time.) ([0033]); and identifying a follow-up action based on the one or more characteristics and executing the follow-up action ([0035]), wherein the event includes one or more of a weather event, an earth event, or a space event (an ability to access other information (e.g., weather or traffic conditions, news, stock prices, sports scores, user schedules, transportation schedules, retail prices, etc.)) ([0027]).
Claim 2. Aggarwal discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the follow-up action is identified by using one or more data structures that map each of a plurality of preconditions to a respective set of one or more follow-up actions, each of the preconditions being based on at least one of the detected characteristics of the event ([0036]).
Claim 3. Aggarwal discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the follow-up action includes presenting options for additional data to a user; and executing the follow-up action includes retrieving a second data set in response to a selection by the user of one of the options ([0037]-[0038], [0040])…( Assistant modules 122 may determine, based on information associated with a user of computing device 110, events for triggering interactions (e.g., conversations or dialogues) between the user of computing device 110 and assistants executing at computing devices 110. Assistant modules 122 may only analyze information associated with computing devices 110 and/or a user of computing device 110s if the user affirmatively consents to use or collection of such information) ([0032]).
Claim 5. Aggarwal discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the follow-up action includes generating a request to perform human-assisted tagging of the first data set and transmitting the request to at least one of a utility for performing a human-assisted tagging of the first data set, and/or a scheduler for scheduling the human-assisted tagging of the first data set ([0043]-[0044]).
Claim 7. Aggarwal discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the follow-up action includes training a machine learning model based on the first data set or performing further analysis on the initial data set ([0069]).
Claims 8-9, 12, 14-16, and 19 are similar in scope as claims 1-3, 5 and 7, respectively; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal (US 2018/0322380) in view of Aggarwal et al. (US 2023/0297912) Hereinafter Aggarwal7912.
Claim 4. Aggarwal discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the follow-up action incudes determining whether the first data set is capable of being used to evaluate a model corresponding to the event, the determining including generating a result value by evaluating the model based on the first data set and detecting whether the result value satisfies a predetermined condition.
However, Aggarwal 7912 discloses determining whether the first data set is capable of being used to evaluate a model corresponding to the event, the determining including generating a result value by evaluating the model based on the first data set and detecting whether the result value satisfies a predetermined condition ([0115]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the feature of Aggarwal 7912 in the system of Aggarwal. One would have been motivated to identify a set of actions to take in response to an event.
Claims 11 and 18 are similar in scope as claim 4, respectively; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
7. Claim(s) 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal (US 2018/0322380) in view of Albrecht et al. (US 2021/0118117).
Claim 6. Aggarwal discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the follow-up action includes identifying a second location based on a first location of the event (([0063]), but fails to explicitly disclose selecting a radar that is configured to observe the second location, and transmitting a request to the radar to provide one or more images of the second location.
However, Albrecht discloses selecting a radar that is configured to observe the second location, and transmitting a request to the radar to provide one or more images of the second location (areas). ([0018],[0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the feature of Aggarwal 7912 in the system of Aggarwal. One would have been motivated to identify a set of actions to take regarding issues at a particular area or region.
Claim 10. Aggarwal discloses the system of claim 8, wherein: the follow-up action includes transmitting a request for a collection of a second data set of the event, and executing the follow-up action includes retrieving the second data set and associating the second data set with the first data set ([0037]-[0038], [0040])…( Assistant modules 122 may determine, based on information associated with a user of computing device 110, events for triggering interactions (e.g., conversations or dialogues) between the user of computing device 110 and assistants executing at computing devices 110. Assistant modules 122 may only analyze information associated with computing devices 110 and/or a user of computing device 110s if the user affirmatively consents to use or collection of such information) ([0032]).
Aggarwal fails to explicitly disclose area of regard (AOR). However, Albrecht discloses identify areas where vegetation growth is likely to cause damage ([0018],[0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the feature of Aggarwal 7912 in the system of Aggarwal. One would have been motivated to identify a set of actions to take regarding issues at a particular area or region.
8. Claim(s) 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal (US 2018/0322380) in view of Heath (US 6,842,437).
Claim 13. Aggarwal discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the follow-up action includes identifying a second location based on a first location of the event ([0063]), but fails to explicitly disclose selecting a satellite that is configured to observe the second location, and transmitting a request to reserve bandwidth of the satellite during a period in which the second location is going to be observable by the satellite.
However, Heath discloses selecting a satellite that is configured to observe the second location, and transmitting a request to reserve bandwidth of the satellite during a period in which the second location is going to be observable by the satellite (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the feature of Heath in the system of Aggarwal. One would have been motivated to generate bandwidth allocations to satisfy a bandwidth request on a periodic basis rather than providing a requesting satellite terminal with whatever bandwidth is available at the moment.
Claim 20 is similar in scope as claim 13; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Phenuel S. Salomon whose telephone number is (571) 270-1699. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (Alternate Friday Off) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Usmaan Saeed can be reached on (571) 272-4046. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-3800.
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.uspto.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.
/PHENUEL S SALOMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2146
Prosecution Insights