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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite(s) limitations that are considered to be data processing. Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219—20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). The 101 guidance instructs us to look to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. As best understood, the claims contain limitations are directed to data processing, as is similar to Electric Power Group, Benson and Flook.
Specifically, the claims obtain data and process the data using various algorithms and mathematical concepts to make a determination based on the processed data; mathematical formulas, equations or calculations to provide the output, these will all fall under the category of Mathematical Concepts and along with mental processes they are considered to be abstract. See the updated 101 guidance issued in October 2019, sections A and C.
Analysis of the claims
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 10, which is being used for analysis, recites: receiving data from a tag configured to transmit data while within one of a plurality of zones; analyzing at least one property of the data to determine a current zone of the plurality of zones containing the tag with an associated confidence value; analyzing prior data transmitted from the tag to determine whether the current zone is different from a prior zone determined from the prior data; comparing (i) a time differential between receipt of the prior data and receipt of the data and (ii) the associated confidence value with a cost value corresponding to moving from the prior zone to the current zone; and updating a location of the tag based on the comparison.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any limitation that links the process to anything other than the processing of data and output (updating a location) of a result as the steps of calculating and the comparing step encompass the use of mathematical operations or can be performed as a mental process which are recognized abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites a first additional element of “receiving data from a tag configured to transmit data while within one of a plurality of zones”. This step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform the calculations. The step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Here, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any limitation that links the process to anything other than the processing of data and output (determination) of a result.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no elements in Claim 10 that appear to clearly have any actionable steps other than making a determination or outputting a result which would be mere extra-solution activity. In the system of Claim 1 Applicant claims a tag that transmits data, and a locationing engine (which based on analysis of specification is a processor component of the server), however, as recited it appears the components operate in routine and conventional manners to allow for aid in gathering and processing data and does not provide limitations that would be considered significantly more.
As is best understood Claims 1, 10 and 18 are all directed to gathering data for processing by a processor or processor based elements and there are no explicit structural elements claimed in these claims that would be considered enough to make the claims non-abstract as the heart of the claim is directed to abstract processing steps of the processing module. The use of generic/well known elements and general processors/computers for the mere implementation of an abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as significantly more. It is not claimed what happens after the final selection/determination step. How is the is the data used, is it transmitted or output in some manner for use, does the system perform another task based on the determination or is the operation merely used for determining most likely position. As currently claimed the limitations are just an operation of determining position without anything that would be considered significantly more, the operation of processing data to determine a position has been found to be an abstract idea.
Therefore, the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer and does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B:
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the re-evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Here, the computer software and modules and processor are equal to a machine being merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Receiving data is basic data gathering and would not provide significantly more and is insignificant extra-solution activity as the use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05 (b), III). The processor also does` not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a “computer system.” See MPEP § 2106.05(a). There is no indication that the assumed CPU being used needs to be more than a generic device.
Therefore, these limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
As currently claimed, the computer software and modules and processor are equal to a machine being merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Receiving data is basic data gathering and would not provide significantly more and is insignificant extra-solution activity as the use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05 (b), III). The processor also does` not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a “computer system.” See MPEP § 2106.05(a). There is no indication that the assumed CPU being used needs to be more than a generic device.
The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
There are no limitations in the independent or the dependent claims that would make the processor/computer change in operation in a manner that would make it work in a way that is new and not capable of being done on a generic processor/computer. The processor in these claims performs merely as a tool and does not appear to provide an improvement to the functionality of a computer. Absent evidence to the contrary, claims 1-20 merely rely on the processing of data. Making a determination as a result of processed data is well known and conventional.
Claims 2, 3, 11, 12 and 19 expand on the processing limitations by claim limitations directed to determining properties of the processed data and do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 4 and 13 expand on the mathematical concepts and define the dimension/coordinates of the zone which do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 5-8, 14-16 and 20 expands on the mathematical concepts with respect to cost value and confidence level values which do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 9, 17 and 20 expands on the processing limitations and merely compares zones to one another from a database which do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and thus, the additional elements (tag, receiver (implicit) and processor) do not transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Taken alone or as an ordered combination, the limitations of claims do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the judicial exception. Using obtained values from the computational operations is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than the exception.
Claims 1-20 merely rely on generic components as a tool to apply the abstract idea. The application of the abstract idea to generic components does not transform the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. While the newly provided guidance of December 2025 states that “When evaluating a claim as a whole, examiners should not dismiss additional elements as mere “generic computer components” without considering whether such elements confer a technological improvement to a technical problem, especially as to improvements to computer components or the computer system.” There are no limitations stating that the any assumed structural elements behave in a non-conventional manner or that the assumed processor is using collected and stored data for anything more than evaluation. All other dependent claims build upon the abstract idea and do not result in significantly more or a practical application and merely just expand on how the software and algorithms operate to process the data. There is no claim to how the processed data is used besides simply making a determination or what tangible step is taken once the processing is done that would link the processing of data to practical application or an actual actionable step. While the algorithms and calculation processing may be novel, novelty does not change the claim from being an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 19 and 20 recites the limitation "and the instructions, when executed, further cause the machine to at least" in first and second lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. These claims are dependent on Claim 1, and as claim 1 does not require instructions being executed by a machine, there is no antecedent basis for the limitations. It is suggested these claims be amended to depend on Claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and applicable 112b rejections set forth in this Office action.
US PGPubs 2022/0240051, 2022/0232805 and 2018/0107969 teach limitations singularly or in combination with respect to a tag configured to transmit data while within one of a plurality of zones; and a locationing engine configured to: receive the data, analyze at least one property of the data to determine a current zone of the plurality of zones, analyze prior data transmitted from the tag to determine whether the current zone is different from a prior zone determined from the prior data, but none of the references alone or in combination teach or suggest it be an obvious modification wherein at least one property of the data to determine a current zone of the plurality of zones containing the tag with an associated confidence value and compare (i) a time differential between receipt of the prior data and receipt of the data and (ii) the associated confidence value with a cost value corresponding to moving from the prior zone to the current zone, and update a location of the tag based on the comparison.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WHITNEY T MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-3338. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 7am-4pm.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/WHITNEY MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646