Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is made FINAL in response to the amendments filed on 7/22/2026.
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 1-2,4-9,11-12,14-19,21-27,29 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One
The claims are directed to a method (claims 1 - 2, 4 - 9, and 31 - 33), apparatus with structural components (claims 11 - 12 and 14 - 19), a non-transitory computer readable medium (claims 21 – 22 and 24 - 25), and a vehicle with structural components (claims 26, 27, and 29). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
As to claims 1,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
determining an ordered set of neural rays based on the plurality of image frames such that the neural rays are ordered based on a respective azimuth angle associated with each of the neural rays, wherein each neural ray of the ordered set of neural rays represents three-dimensional positions of pixels of an image frame of the plurality of image frames, such that the neural rays are ordered based on a respective azimuth angle
For example, a human can review multiple image rays or visual lines from a computer screen, then mentally arrange them into an ordered sequence based on a respective azimuth angle.
determining a graph network that represents each neural ray of the ordered set of neural rays as a sequence of points, wherein each point is associated with a node of a plurality of nodes of the graph network;
For example, a human can mentally map a set of observed paths into a graph, where each point along a path is associated with a node or edge in the graph.
determining, based on determining the graph network, a feature set for processing by a transformer network, wherein the feature set includes features of each of the plurality of image frames.
For example, a human can compile a feature set by identify select features associated with the nodes or edges in the graph.
detecting an object based on the feature set
For example, a human can observe features and identify the object using judgement or recognition.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
receiving a plurality of image frames;
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim further recites:
controlling a machine based on the detected object
which is recited at high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
As discussed above, the additional element of a controlling a machine amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system which does not provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The machine is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of transformer network amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
receiving a plurality of image frames;
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
As discussed above, the additional elements of:
controlling a machine based on the detected object
amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system which does not provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The machine is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of transformer network amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 2,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 1, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein determining the ordered set of neural rays includes projecting each pixel of the plurality of image frames onto a three-dimensional space based on intrinsic parameters of a plurality of cameras from which the plurality of image frames are received.
The model is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more The “determining” is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f) ) As such, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The plurality of cameras amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein determining the ordered set of neural rays includes projecting each pixel of the plurality of image frames onto a three-dimensional space based on intrinsic parameters of a plurality of cameras from which the plurality of image frames are received.
As discussed above, the additional element of a computer to perform the process steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system which does not provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Wherein such application does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the use of generic computing tools to execute the instruction for the judicial exception does not denote anything significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The plurality of cameras amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 4,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
further comprising determining the respective azimuth angle associated with each of the neural rays.
For example, a human can determine the azimuth angle by measuring the angle between a reference direction and the line connecting the position to a target object.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 5,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
Wherein determining the respective azimuth angle is based on intrinsic parameters of a plurality of cameras used to capture the plurality of image frames,
For example, a human can determine the azimuth angle by measuring the angle between a reference direction and the line connecting the position to a target object of a plurality of cameras
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 6,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 1, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the plurality of image frames are received from a plurality of different types of cameras.
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the plurality of image frames are received from a plurality of different types of cameras.
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 7,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the sequence of points associated with a respective neural ray include equidistant points along a length of the respective neural ray.
For example, a human can determine the equidistant points which is located at an equal distance from two or more other points.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 8,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein a Euclidian distance between a first node of the plurality of nodes of the graph network and a second node of the plurality of nodes of the graph network fails to meet a threshold, and wherein the first node and the second node are connected by an edge
For example, a human can determine the Euclidean distance which is the straight-line distance between two points in space, calculated using the Pythagorean theorem.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 9,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein the feature set is determined based on graph attention networks
For example, a human can determine ta feature set by using information gathered from graph attention networks
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
Claim 11 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The memory and the at least one processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 12 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 14 has similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 15 has similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 16 has similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 17 has similar limitations as claim 7. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 18 has similar limitations as claim 8. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 19 has similar limitations as claim 9. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 21 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The non-transitory computer readable medium and the at least one processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 22 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 24 has similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 25 has similar limitations as claim 9. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 26 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The plurality of cameras, a memory, and the at least one processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 27 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 29 has similar limitations as claim 10. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
As to claims 31,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 1, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein controlling the machine comprises controlling an actuator of the machine
which is recited at high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The machine and actuator are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein controlling the machine comprises controlling an actuator of the machine
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The machine and actuator are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 32,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein each neural ray of the ordered set of neural rays is a line that extends from a camera center to a furthest point away from the camera center and includes all points along the line, the camera center being associated with a respective camera for the respective neural ray.
For example, a human can review multiple image rays or visual lines from a computer screen, then mentally arrange them into an ordered sequence based on distance.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The camera is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The camera is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 32,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
the ordered set of neural rays comprises a first neural ray having a first azimuth angle, a second neural ray having a second azimuth angle, and a third neural ray having a third azimuth angle;
the third azimuth angle is greater than the second azimuth angle, and the second azimuth angle is greater than the first azimuth angle; and
the ordered set of neural rays is ordered such that the second neural ray is arranged between the first neural ray and the third neural ray in the ordered set of neural rays.
For example, a human can review multiple image rays or visual lines from a computer screen, then mentally arrange them into an ordered sequence based on the azimuth angle.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The 101 Rejection still has not been overcome. The claims are abstract and the steps in the claims can be completed with a mental process and/or generic computer components. Additionally, the steps in the claims do not describe an improvement of technology in any way.
The applicant argues:
Contrary to the Action's assertion, the human mind is not equipped to practically control a machine (e.g., a robotic system, a vehicle, etc.). In other words, claim 1 recites non-abstract elements that cannot be carried out by human thought, whether alone or with the aid of pencil and paper. Indeed, contrary to the Office's assertion that the claim limitations "amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for using the in claimed process," the claims recite limitations that cannot be practically performed in the mind. For instance, other than stating, in mere conclusory fashion, that the claim limitations "amount to extra-solution activity of gathering data," the Office has failed to articulate how the human mind can control a machine (e.g., a robotic system, a vehicle, etc.).
The examiner disagrees. The examiner is not saying that the human mind physically controls the machine. Rather a human can detect an object based in its features and determine how the machine should be controlled based on the detected object. Merely using a generic machine to carry out that determination does not make the abstract idea patent eligible or improve the machine itself.
The applicant argues:
Even if the Office were correct that the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, which Applicant does not concede to, the claims nevertheless integrate the purported judicial exception into a practical application under Prong Two. Indeed, the claims integrate any alleged abstract ideas into a practical application of controlling a machine (e.g., a robotic system, a vehicle, etc.). According to the specification, early fusion of images that are represented as neural rays advantageously preserves information from cameras as neural rays are unprojected directly from the camera images. Moreover, the disclosed techniques reduce the number of parameters needed to be learned relative to conventional CNN setups, and further improve the accuracy of downstream tasks, such as perception tasks (e.g., object detection) and machine control. MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) specifies as follows:
[a] claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field.
(Emphasis added). As described in the specification, "[a] typical setup for a vehicle with driving assistance includes an array of multiple cameras each having a field-of-view that when combined as a whole encompass a field-of-view of 360 degrees around the vehicle." See specification at [0044]. However, conventional techniques "involve handling the information received from each camera independently in combining the information at the output level" using, for example, separate models for each distinct camera. However, it is often the case that "information (e.g., an object) can be split across different images captured by different cameras of the array" such that the use of separate models, and by consequence the training of the separate models (and all of the respective parameters), has high memory and computational resource requirements.
As one solution to at least one of the above-identified problems, the specification describes that "the present techniques provide a simpler and more efficient approach to 3D object detection that can also improve the 3D object detection [for example], by utilizing early fusion [to] preserve all information from the cameras as the neural rays are unprojected directly from the camera images." Id. at [0046]. In this manner, early fusion "enables a compact and structured representation of a scene by reducing the number of parameters needed to be learned as compared to typical convolutional neural networks because the neural rays can be represented as a fixed set of 3D coordinates, which can be more effectively processed by subsequent modules." Id. This is may be particularly "advantageous in cases where the object of interest is small and difficult to detect using typical feature extraction methods." Id. As one of several described improvements and benefits, the disclosed technique "improves the accuracy of downstream perception tasks that utilize these features to provide vehicle assistance services" such as "more accurate tracking of vehicles, pedestrians, obstacles, road signage, road markings, and the like" and "improved
tracking [that] allows vehicle control systems to more accurately navigate vehicles around obstacles. Id. at [0047]-[0048]. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the claimed implementation then enables a machine (e.g., a vehicle, a robotic system, etc.) to be more responsive to, for example, "nearby obstacles and can be routed around detected obstacles more efficiently" which can be of particular importance in safety-
critical applications (e.g., autonomous driving applications). Id.
As recited in the claims, it is only upon receiving a plurality of image frames, determining an ordered set of neural rays based on the image frames (including that the neural rays are ordered based on a respective azimuth angle associated with each of the neural rays), determining a graph network that represents each neural ray of the ordered set of neural rays, determining a feature set for processing by a transformer network, and detecting an object based on the feature set, that the machine can be controlled based on the detected object. Therefore, the specific combination of features of amended claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract ideas into a practical application of controlling a machine. Accordingly, claim 1 recites additional elements that amount to a practical application of any alleged abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong Two of the 2-step inquiry. Independent claims 11, 21, and 26 have been amended to recite similar language as claim 1 and therefore also recite additional elements that amount to a practical application of any alleged abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong two of the 2-step inquiry.
The examiner disagrees. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s position, as the arguments presented rely on limitations that are neither explicitly recited in the claims nor reasonably inferred from them. At no point in the pending claims does the applicant assert, describe, or even suggest the limitations of
According to the specification, early fusion of images that are represented as neural rays advantageously preserves information from cameras as neural rays are unprojected directly from the camera images. Moreover, the disclosed techniques reduce the number of parameters needed to be learned relative to conventional CNN setups, and further improve the accuracy of downstream tasks, such as perception tasks (e.g., object detection) and machine control.
a] typical setup for a vehicle with driving assistance includes an array of multiple cameras each having a field-of-view that when combined as a whole encompass a field-of-view of 360 degrees around the vehicle
involve handling the information received from each camera independently in combining the information at the output level
information (e.g., an object) can be split across different images captured by different cameras of the array" such that the use of separate models, and by consequence the training of the separate models (and all of the respective parameters), has high memory and computational resource requirements.
"the present techniques provide a simpler and more efficient approach to 3D object detection that can also improve the 3D object detection [for example], by utilizing early fusion [to] preserve all information from the cameras as the neural rays are unprojected directly from the camera images
enables a compact and structured representation of a scene by reducing the number of parameters needed to be learned as compared to typical convolutional neural networks because the neural rays can be represented as a fixed set of 3D coordinates, which can be more effectively processed by subsequent modules
Rather, the applicant appears to have introduced this language as part of the argument, but such a limitation cannot be read into the claims when it is not supported by the actual claim language. Without clear support in the claim language the examiner cannot give weight to arguments premised on these alleged limitations.
The claims merely use a generic machine or vehicle. Such post-solution activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims do not recite a particular improvement to camera, computer, or machine-control technology, rather they apply the abstract image-processing results in a conventional technological environment.
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018))
It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).
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 BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's Off).
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, Omar Fernandez can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights