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
ELECTION/RESTRICTIONS
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1: claims 1-2 in the reply filed on 11/02/25 is acknowledged. Claims 3-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on (11/02/25). Applicant is reminded that claims 3-4 are required to be cancelled.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to as ineligible under subject eligibility test. In the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, dated Tuesday, December 16, 2014, page 74621), The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional device elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1
Step 1
This step inquires “is the claim to a process, article of machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes,
Claim 1 - “Apparatuses” are machines.
Step 2A - Prong 1
This step inquires “does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or natural phenomenon”. This claim appears to directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation of “a camera; a specific real world location of the camera; a real world matrix set of individual steradian airspace; the set is at the specific real world location; a real world overall radius boundary of the set; a real world left upper overall boundary of the set; a real world left lower overall boundary of the set; a real world right upper overall boundary of the set; a real world right lower overall boundary of the set; a real world overall radial angle size on columns of the set; a real world overall radial angle size on rows of the set; a real world individual steradian airspace upper left boundary in the set; a real world individual steradian airspace lower left boundary in the set; a real world individual steradian airspace upper right boundary in the set; a real world individual steradian airspace lower right boundary in the set; a real world individual steradian airspace interior radial angle size in the set; a real world steradian airspace inertial system of the set.”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “camera” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “camera” language, “location and boundary selection” in the context of this claim encompasses covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity).
STEP 2A – PRONG 1 - CONCLUSION
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2
This step inquires “does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites one additional element – using a “camera” to perform “location and boundary selection” steps. The “camera” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor) “a camera; a specific real world location of the camera; a real world matrix set of individual steradian airspace; the set is at the specific real world location; a real world overall radius boundary of the set; a real world left upper overall boundary of the set; a real world left lower overall boundary of the set; a real world right upper overall boundary of the set; a real world right lower overall boundary of the set; a real world overall radial angle size on columns of the set; a real world overall radial angle size on rows of the set; a real world individual steradian airspace upper left boundary in the set; a real world individual steradian airspace lower left boundary in the set; a real world individual steradian airspace upper right boundary in the set; a real world individual steradian airspace lower right boundary in the set; a real world individual steradian airspace interior radial angle size in the set; a real world steradian airspace inertial system of the set.” such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
STEP 2A – PRONG 2 - CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The critical inquiry here is does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception? The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “camera” to perform “location and boundary selection” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
As to claim 2, this claim is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (“keeping digital copies of the abstract grid parameters”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
CONCLUSION
No prior art has been found for claims 1-2 in their current form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen P Coleman whose telephone number is (571)270-5931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at (571) 272-9523. 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.
Stephen P. Coleman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/STEPHEN P COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675