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
Status of the Claims
The following office action in response to the amendments filed on 8/6/2025.
Claims 1-6 are currently amended.
Therefore, claims 1-6 are pending and addressed below.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-6 are directed to an information processing device, a method, which is a process, machine, manufacturer or composition of matter and thus statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “…receive an input of a human influence parameter influenced by a human activity; and receive a natural environment parameter influenced by non-human ecosystem and non-ecosystem activities, wherein the natural environment parameter is a signal processing result from hyperspectral data from a satellite; calculate a natural capital stock prediction value from the human influence parameter and the natural environment parameter, using a function representing an integration of an amount of change per unit time in natural capital stock, which has elements of internal factors that change over time and external factors including the human influence parameter and the natural environment parameter; and output the natural capital stock prediction value calculated”. These recited limitations, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of mathematical relationships and/or mathematical calculations (i.e. calculates a natural capital stock prediction value) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of mathematical relationships and/or mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the device claimed of a processor, an input device or a sensor and a ground station antenna that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receive…an input of a human influence parameter…; and receive… a natural environment parameter …; calculate …the natural capital stock prediction value…; and output to a display …the natural capital stock prediction value…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. In addition, the claim recites the limitations “receive… an input”, “calculate a natural capital stock prediction value”; and “output to a display the natural capital stock prediction value”, which are considered to simply employ generic computing components to perform insignificant extra-solution activity as they amount to mere data gathering and output (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the 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.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the processor, the input device or the sensor and the ground station antenna that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receive…an input of a human influence parameter…; and receive… a natural environment parameter …; calculate …the natural capital stock prediction value…; and output to a display …the natural capital stock prediction value…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. In addition, the claim recites the limitations “receive… an input”, “calculate a natural capital stock prediction value”; and “output to a display the natural capital stock prediction value”, are generic computing components to perform insignificant extra-solution activity.
With respect to the claim elements determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, these elements are similar to at least the following concepts determined by the courts to be insignificant extra solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(d)):
Receiving (input) or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014));
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”);
Presenting (output) offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
When viewing these additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, these additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 4 recites limitations substantially similar to claim 1. Thus, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as above in claim 1. Thus, the claim is not eligible.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 5-6 are dependent on claims 1 and 4. Therefore, claims 2-3 and 5-6 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 1 and 4. Claims 2-3 and 5-6 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the processor included in the dependent claim 2-3 and 5-6 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “estimate… the function… and observed …actual measurement values…; determine …the evaluation function by calculate …an error between the natural capital stock prediction value…”; minimize …the output of the evaluation function using the minimum point operator” (claim 2); “compute… an output prediction value of a product…” (claim 3); “calculate… an error between the natural capital stock prediction value…” (claim 5); “computing…an output prediction value of a product…” (claim 6), such that such limitations amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Accordingly, 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-3 and 5-6 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than an instruction to “apply it” with the judicial exception. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the processor included in the dependent claim 2-3 and 5-6 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “estimate… the function… and observed …actual measurement values…; determine …the evaluation function by calculate …an error between the natural capital stock prediction value…”; minimize …the output of the evaluation function using the minimum point operator” (claim 2); “compute… an output prediction value of a product…” (claim 3); “calculate… an error between the natural capital stock prediction value…” (claim 5); “computing…an output prediction value of a product…” (claim 6), above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the dependent claims 2-3 and 5-6 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Previous Claim rejections – 35 USC § 101
The updated rejections of claims 1-6 in view of Alice have been provided in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applicant argued that: “…Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do not recite an abstract mathematical concept…” (Please see the remarks on pages 15-20).
Answer 1: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim recites “…receive an input of a human influence parameter influenced by a human activity; and receive a natural environment parameter influenced by non-human ecosystem and non-ecosystem activities, wherein the natural environment parameter is a signal processing result from hyperspectral data from a satellite; calculate a natural capital stock prediction value from the human influence parameter and the natural environment parameter, using a function representing an integration of an amount of change per unit time in natural capital stock, which has elements of internal factors that change over time and external factors including the human influence parameter and the natural environment parameter; and output the natural capital stock prediction value calculated”. These recited limitations, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of mathematical relationships and/or mathematical calculations (i.e. calculates a natural capital stock prediction value) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of performed in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In addition, the MPEP 2106.04(a) states that: “…Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above. If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One”. Thus, According to the MPEP 2106.04(a), Examiner (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) (…receive an input of a human influence parameter influenced by a human activity; and receive a natural environment parameter influenced by non-human ecosystem and non-ecosystem activities, wherein the natural environment parameter is a signal processing result from hyperspectral data from a satellite; calculate a natural capital stock prediction value from the human influence parameter and the natural environment parameter, using a function representing an integration of an amount of change per unit time in natural capital stock, which has elements of internal factors that change over time and external factors including the human influence parameter and the natural environment parameter; and output the natural capital stock prediction value calculated” in the Applicant’s claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) (…receive an input of a human influence parameter influenced by a human activity; and receive a natural environment parameter influenced by non-human ecosystem and non-ecosystem activities, wherein the natural environment parameter is a signal processing result from hyperspectral data from a satellite; calculate a natural capital stock prediction value from the human influence parameter and the natural environment parameter, using a function representing an integration of an amount of change per unit time in natural capital stock, which has elements of internal factors that change over time and external factors including the human influence parameter and the natural environment parameter; and output the natural capital stock prediction value calculated) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas of “Mathematical Concepts”: (mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations, i.e. calculates a natural capital stock prediction value). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Argument 2: Applicant argued that: “…The Claimed Subject Matter Is Integrated Into A Practical Application …” (Please see the remarks on pages 21-24).
Answer 2: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the device claimed of a processor, an input device or a sensor and a ground station antenna that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receive…an input of a human influence parameter…; and receive… a natural environment parameter …; calculate …the natural capital stock prediction value…; and output to a display …the natural capital stock prediction value…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. In addition, the claim recites the limitations “receive… an input”, “calculate a natural capital stock prediction value”; and “output to a display the natural capital stock prediction value”, which are considered to simply employ generic computing components to perform insignificant extra-solution activity as they amount to mere data gathering and output (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the 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.
Argument 3: Applicant argued that: “…Step 2B: The Claims Do Not Merely Recite Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity…” (Please see the remarks on pages 25-30).
Answer 3: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the processor, the input device or the sensor and the ground station antenna that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receive…an input of a human influence parameter…; and receive… a natural environment parameter …; calculate …the natural capital stock prediction value…; and output to a display …the natural capital stock prediction value…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. In addition, the claim recites the limitations “receive… an input”, “calculate a natural capital stock prediction value”; and “output to a display the natural capital stock prediction value”, are generic computing components to perform insignificant extra-solution activity.
With respect to the claim elements determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, these elements are similar to at least the following concepts determined by the courts to be insignificant extra solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(d)):
Receiving (input) or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014));
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”);
Presenting (output) offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
When viewing these additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, these additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
For the above reasons, it is believed that Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the rejections should be sustained.
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 extension fee 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 TIEN C. NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108.
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.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694