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 Arguments
With regards to the claim interpretations and claim rejections provided in the office action, dated 12/10/25, applicant has amended the claims and therefore being reanalyzed. The 101 rejection with respect to claim 17-20 has been withdrawn, the 103 rejection has been withdrawn. After amendment the rejections below are pending. Herein, accordingly, this action is made final.
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 1,4-6,8,17-21 and 23-32are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
The claims are directed to a statutory category (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims (see claim 1) employ abstract idea directed to collecting information, selecting relevant image data, evaluating that data, and storing the result. The claims lack an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The claim does not include additional step(s)/element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited step(s)/element(s), when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to more than the above-identified abstract idea. The additional elements or combination of elements “symbol monitor” and “hardware symbol detectors” in the claim taken individually or in combination is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea) itself because they are recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications without reciting a specific technological improvement in detector architecture, frame processing, or computer functionality.. The use of generic computer components does not impose any meaningful limits on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. A claim without significantly additional limitations is not patent eligible.
Using the 101 subject matter eligibility test, the claims pass Step 1 since they are directed to a statutory category (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Analyzing under Step 2A, i.e., part 1- Mayo Test, the claims are directed to abstract idea and therefore must be analyzed at Step 2B. Using Step 2B, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Dependent claim(s) 4-6, 8, 18-20, 23-28, and 30-32 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner recommend the amendment to recite the “monitoring” is “continually monitoring” as described in paragraph [0040] to overcome the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amandeep Saini whose telephone number is (571)272-3382. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8AM-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.
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.
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights