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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/03/26 has been entered.
Claims amended:
Independent claims: 1, 16 and 17.
Claim Status
Claims 1-17 are pending. They comprising of 3 groups:
1) System: 1-15, and
2) Method: 16, and
3) Device (ntCRSM): 17.
Claim 16 is broadest and will be examined first.
As of 02/03/26, independent claim 1 is as followed:
Claim 1 (Currently Amended): An apparatus comprising:
[1] a report acquisition unit configured to acquire a report of an abnormality having occurred in a facility;
[2] a work plan output unit configured to output, responsive to acquiring the report of the abnormality, a work plan for dealing with [[an]] the abnormality indicated as abnormality information in the report;
[3] an evaluation acquisition unit configured to acquire an evaluation of work according to the work plan output from the work plan output unit; and
[4] an update unit configured to update output content of the work plan by the work plan output unit by using the evaluation acquired by the evaluation acquisition unit;
wherein the work plan for dealing with the abnormality includes information regarding a similar abnormality having occurred in the past and a work record of dealing with that abnormality.
16. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
[1] acquiring, by a computer, a report of an abnormality having occurred in a facility;
[2] outputting, by the computer, responsive to acquiring the report of the abnormality, a work plan for dealing with an abnormality indicated as abnormality information in the report;
[3] acquiring, by the computer, an evaluation of work according to the output work plan; and
[4] updating, by the computer, output content of the work plan to be output by using the acquired evaluation
wherein the work plan for dealing with the abnormality includes information regarding a similar abnormality having occurred in the past and a work record of dealing with that abnormality.
Note: for referential purpose, numerals [1]-[4] are added to the beginning of each element.
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 1-17 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.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
(1) law of nature,
(2) natural phenomenon, and
(3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(i) a method of organizing human activities,
(2i) an idea of itself, or
(3i) a mathematical relationship or formula.
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03
Step 1:
claims 1-15 are directed to an apparatus for monitoring a work plan (repair) of an abnormality in a plant comprising units configured to carry out the steps of: [1] acquiring, by a computer, a report of an abnormality having occurred in a facility; [2] outputting, by the computer, a work plan for dealing with an abnormality indicated as abnormality information in the report; [3] acquiring, by the computer, an evaluation of work according to the output work plan; and [4] updating, by the computer, output content of the work plan to be output by using the acquired evaluation. (Step 1: yes).
Claim 16 is directed to a method for monitoring a work plan (repair) of an abnormality in a plant comprising a plurality of steps of: [1] acquiring, by a computer, a report of an abnormality having occurred in a facility; [2] outputting, by the computer, a work plan for dealing with an abnormality indicated as abnormality information in the report; [3] acquiring, by the computer, an evaluation of work according to the output work plan; and [4] updating, by the computer, output content of the work plan to be output by using the acquired evaluation. (Step 1: yes).
Claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory CRM for monitoring a work plan (repair) of an abnormality in a plant comprising a plurality of steps of: [1] acquiring, by a computer, a report of an abnormality having occurred in a facility; [2] outputting, by the computer, a work plan for dealing with an abnormality indicated as abnormality information in the report; [3] acquiring, by the computer, an evaluation of work according to the output work plan; and [4] updating, by the computer, output content of the work plan to be output by using the acquired evaluation. (Step 1: yes).
Thus, the claims are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception (abstract idea, law of nature, or Natural Phenome? MPEP 2106.04.
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
A. Step 2A, prong One:
Claim 16, as exemplary, recites the abstract idea of for method for a method for monitoring a work plan (repair) of an abnormality in a plant comprising a plurality of steps of: [1] acquiring, by a computer, a report of an abnormality having occurred in a facility; [2] outputting, by the computer, a work plan for dealing with an abnormality indicated as abnormality information in the report; [3] acquiring, by the computer, an evaluation of work according to the output work plan; and [4] updating, by the computer, output content of the work plan to be output by using the acquired evaluation. (Step 1: yes).
These recited limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to business process for evaluating and determining abnormal condition of a plant, generating a work plan, evaluating the work plan, and updating the work plan. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
These steps are those which could be performed mentally, including with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, then it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 16/1 recites a series of steps carried out by a computing device, comprising:
Steps: Types
[1] acquiring, …, a report (data) of abnormality. Data gathering, insignificant pre-solution activity (IP-SA or IE-SA).
[2] outputting a workplan (data) Mental (evaluate/recommend) solution.
[3] acquiring evaluation (data). Data gathering, insignificant extra-solution activity (IE-SA).
[4] updating .. output content (data) of work plan. New data gathering, IE-SA.
Thus under Step 2A, prong 1, the steps [1], [3], [4] recites steps of data gathering, data generation, etc., which are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Step [2] of “outputting a work plan,” recites steps which may fit within the category of “mental process” which is an abstract idea.
B. Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because it deals with a method for monitoring a work plan (repair) of an abnormality in a plant by collecting operation data, generating a work plan using a prediction model, carrying out an evaluation of the work plan, and updating the work plan.
The claims recites the additional elements which are steps [1]-[4] cited above, and a report acquisition unit, a work plan output unit, an evaluation acquisition unit, and an update unit.
Steps [1], [2], and [4] are data gathering and data displaying, which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity step.
Step [3] is well known mental steps for evaluating and determining a condition of a facility (plant), i.e. abnormal condition, and generating a work plan using a prediction model.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer devices or modules or software, i.e. an electronic device having a processor with a software application thereon. The report acquisition unit, a work plan output unit, an evaluation acquisition unit, and an update unit are generic and well known computer functions. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea for evaluating the a condition of a facility, provide a work plan, evaluating the work plan, and updating the workplan, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements performing generic computer functions.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
The claimed invention is basically “a data processing system” comprising the steps of receiving data, outputting a work plan, evaluating the work plan, and updating the output content.
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Steps [1], [2], and [4] are data gathering and data displaying, which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity step.
Step [3] is well known mental steps for evaluating and determining a condition of a facility (plant), i.e. abnormal condition, and generating a work plan using a prediction model.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer devices or modules or software, i.e. an electronic device having a processor with a software application thereon. The report acquisition unit, a work plan output unit, an evaluation acquisition unit, and an update unit are generic and well known computer functions. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea for evaluating the a condition of a facility, provide a work plan, evaluating the work plan, and updating the workplan, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements performing generic computer functions, and field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claim are basically collect data, analyze data, and provide set of results, which are not patent eligible, see Electric Power Group, LLC. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system model for determining maintenance activity capability of an asset. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
As for dep. claim 2 (part of 1 above), which deals with further details of the work plan output, these further limit the abstract idea of prediction analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 2 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 3-4 and 8(part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the work plan output, i.e. similarity calculation, these further limit the abstract idea of prediction analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 3-4 and 8 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 5-6 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the work plan output and data acquisitions, these further limit the abstract idea of prediction analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 5-6 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 7, 9-15 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the data stored in the database, information for the prediction value, these further limit the abstract idea of prediction analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 7, 9-15 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Therefore, claims 1-15 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
On October 10, 2007, the Patent Office issued the "Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.," 73 Fed. Reg. 57,526 (2007) (hereinafter the Examination Guidelines). Section III is entitled "Rationales to support rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103." Within this section is the following quote from the Supreme Court: "rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by merely conclusory statements; instead there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Under the Examination Guidelines, the following is a list of rationales that may be used to support a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
(a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(c) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(d) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(e) "Obvious to try" choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(f) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
(g) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM) in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Each rationale is resolved using the Graham factual inquiries.
Claims 16 (method1) and respective 17 (article) and respective 1 (apparatus) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over:
Names Publications:
(1) NAGINO 2021/0.216.974, and
(2) DOS SANTOS ET AL. US 11,769,352.
As for independent claims 16 (method), 17 (device) and 1 (apparatus), NAGINO discloses a method, article and an apparatus for carrying out the steps of:
[1] acquiring, by a computer, information (data) report of operation status of a target apparatus /device (20) in a plant (facility),
{see Fig. 1, [0013 … status information of a target apparatus 20 under operation…], [0017 acquisition unit 100 is connected to the target apparatus 20 … acquire and update information from the target apparatus …]}
PNG
media_image1.png
284
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
324
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
{see Fig. 1, 20 “Apparatus” reads over “facility,”, 30 “Planning Device,” 40 “Maintenance Planning device,” Fig. 2, 100, “operating status information, Acquisition unit,” 210 “Abnormality,”}
[2] outputting, by the computer, a work plan for dealing with an abnormality indicated as abnormality information in the report;
{see [0013… Fig. 1 .. the system 10 is configured to generate a maintenance plan … and to change a maintenance work … according to status information of a target apparatus 20 under operation..], Fig. 3, S350 “prediction of abnormality”, S360 “Generate Maintenance plan.”}
PNG
media_image3.png
706
420
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[3] acquiring, by the computer, an evaluation of work according to the output work plan; and
{see [0016 … and to change a period in which a maintenance work of the maintenance plan is to be performed..]}
[0013… Fig. 1 .. the system 10 is configured to generate a maintenance plan … and to change a maintenance work … according to status information of a target apparatus 20 under operation..].
[4] updating, by the computer, output content of the work plan to be output by using the acquired evaluation.
{see [0017 … update information every pre-determined time period…]}
PNG
media_image4.png
282
475
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The update information about the operation parameters of the apparatus at different time period, i.e. every minute. NAGINO does not explicitly discloses an evaluation of work according to the output, however, on [0013], it discloses the subsequent step of changing a maintenance work according to status information which indicates an evaluation of the work is carried out which changes the apparatus condition and converts the apparatus from abnormal condition to normal condition.
NAGINO fairly teaches the claimed invention except for (1) the type of status information received from the apparatus in the plant, abnormal condition status and (2) a work plan for dealing with the abnormal condition based similar abnormality having occurred in the past and a work record of dealing with that abnormality.
In a similar apparatus maintenance planning, DOS SANTOS ET AL. teaches the steps of maintaining the operation of an apparatus by receiving the operation report from the target apparatus containing an abnormality (problem), generating a repair notification (outputting a work plan) for dealing with the abnormal condition including information regarding a similar abnormality having occurred in the past and work record of dealing with that abnormality, see claim 1, step (a) and (b).
PNG
media_image5.png
781
450
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to modify the plant planning and maintenance system of NAGINO to include step of receiving the operation report from the target apparatus containing an abnormality (problem), generating a repair notification (outputting a work plan) for dealing with the abnormal condition including information regarding a similar abnormality having occurred in the past and work record of dealing with that abnormality as taught by DOS SANTOS ET AL. for effective repair, as shown in claim 1.
Dependent claim(s) 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAGINO /DOS SANTOS ET AL. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of (2) CN 114, 547,273 A.
As for dep. claim 2 (part of 1 above), which deals with a database connection unit to be connected to a database for storing operation information and the work plan, CN 114.547.273 is cited to teach a database configured to store a plurality of sets each including information (question) and answer for each question, and selection of proper candidate suitable to the desired question/issue and answer.
PNG
media_image6.png
248
659
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to modify the plant planning and maintenance system of NAGINO /DOS SANTOS ET AL. to include a database configured to store a plurality of sets each including information (question) and answer for each question, and selection of proper candidate suitable to the desired question/issue and answer as taught by CN 114.547.273 for obtaining the proper candidate for answering the question (issue/abnormal condition).
As for dep. claim 3 (part of 1/ 2 above), which deals with selection a candidate with a higher similarity calculation, this is taught in CN 114.547.273 in paragraph cited below.
PNG
media_image7.png
308
808
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As for dep. claim 10 (part of 1/ 2 / 3 above), which deals the storage of data deals with a work plan including maintenance preparation work and work, this is taught in NAGINO Fig. 1, 40 “Maintenance management device, Fig. 2, 240 “Maintenance information” and 250 “Maintenance Plan,” and respective [0013], [0015] and [0016], [0034].
As for dep. claim 4 (part of 1/ 2 above), which deals with selection a candidate with a higher similarity of the problem, this is taught in CN 114.547.273 in paragraph cited below.
PNG
media_image7.png
308
808
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As for dep. claim 11 (part of 1/ 2 / 3 above), which deals a database storing data including maintenance preparation work and work, this is taught in NAGINO Fig. 1, 40 “Maintenance management device, Fig. 2, 240 “Maintenance information” and 250 “Maintenance Plan,” and respective [0013], [0015] and [0016], [0034] and [0035].
As for dep. claim 5 (part of 1/ 2 above), which deals with features of the work record acquisition unit and the update unit, these are taught in NAGINO Fig. 1, “Acquisition unit 100”, and 40 “Maintenance management device,” Fig. 2, 240 “Maintenance information acquisition unit,” and respective [0016], [0034] and [0035].
As for dep. claim 12 (part of 1/ 2 / 5 above), which deals a database storing data including maintenance preparation work and work, this is taught in NAGINO Fig. 1, 40 “Maintenance management device, Fig. 2, 240 “Maintenance information” and 250 “Maintenance Plan,” and respective [0013], [0015] and [0016], [0034] and [0035].
As for dep. claim 6 (part of 1/ 2 above), which deals with features of the plurality of sets including an evaluation of work, this is taught in Fig. 3, S370 and respective [0103].
PNG
media_image8.png
284
474
media_image8.png
Greyscale
As for dep. claim 13 (part of 1/ 2 / 6 above), which deals a database storing data including maintenance preparation work and work, this is taught in NAGINO Fig. 1, 40 “Maintenance management device, Fig. 2, 240 “Maintenance information” and 250 “Maintenance Plan,” and respective [0013], [0015] and [0016], [0034] and [0035].
As for dep. claim 7 (part of 1/ 2 above), which deals with features of the plurality of sets including information about instrument, this is taught in NAGINO [0024… a device that is used for the maintenance work, …].
As for dep. claim 8 (part of 1/ 2 / 7 above), which deals with features of the similarity calculation unit, this is taught in CN 114.547.273 cited below.
PNG
media_image7.png
308
808
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As for dep. claim 14 (part of 1/ 2 / 7 above), which deals a database storing data including maintenance preparation work and work, this is taught in NAGINO Fig. 1, 40 “Maintenance management device, Fig. 2, 240 “Maintenance information” and 250 “Maintenance Plan,” and respective [0013], [0015] and [0016], [0034] and [0035].
As for dep. claim 15 (part of 1/ 2 / 8 above), which deals a database storing data including maintenance preparation work and work, this is taught in NAGINO Fig. 1, 40 “Maintenance management device, Fig. 2, 240 “Maintenance information” and 250 “Maintenance Plan,” and respective [0013], [0015] and [0016], [0034] and [0035].
As for dep. claim 9 (part of 1/ 2 above), which deals a database storing data including maintenance preparation work and work, this is taught in NAGINO Fig. 1, 40 “Maintenance management device, Fig. 2, 240 “Maintenance information” and 250 “Maintenance Plan,” and respective [0013], [0015] and [0016], [0034] and [0035].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101 Rejection:
Applicant’s comment that the recited action is carried out by a computer system that can not be practically applied in the mind is not persuasive in view of MPEP 2106.05(f) “apply it.” Applicant has only described generic computing elements performing generic computer functions, and field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claim are basically collect data, analyze data, and provide set of results, which are not patent eligible, see Electric Power Group, LLC. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Applicant’s comment with respect to the similarity to the Bascom case is not persuasive.
As shown below, BASCOM Global Internet case deals with Content Filtering technology using content filtering software being installed on a remote server or at remote location with customizable features specific to each end user.
PNG
media_image9.png
470
674
media_image9.png
Greyscale
103 Rejection: applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims were persuasive and the previous rejections have been withdrawn. A new reference has been cited to address the amendment features.
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.
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's arguments Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 6:30-4:30 PM (ET).
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, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. 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.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.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights